Swimming and defence: competing needs across ontogeny in armoured fishes (Agonidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biological armours are potent model systems for understanding the complex series of competing demands on protective exoskeletons; after all, armoured organisms are the product of millions of years of refined engineering under the harshest conditions. Fishes are no strangers to armour, with various types of armour plating common to the 400–500 Myr of evolution in both jawed and jawless fishes. Here, we focus on the poachers (Agonidae), a family of armoured fishes native to temperate waters of the Pacific rim. We examined armour morphology, body stiffness and swimming performance in the northern spearnose poacher ( Agonopsis vulsa ) over ontogeny. As juveniles, these fishes make frequent nocturnal forays into the water column in search of food, while heavily armoured adults are bound to the benthos. Most armour dimensions and density increase with body length, as does body stiffness. Juvenile poachers have enlarged spines on their armour whereas adults invest more mineral in armour plate bases. Adults are stiffer and accelerate faster than juveniles with an anguilliform swimming mode. Subadults more closely approximate adults more than smaller juveniles, with regards to both swimming and armour mechanics. Poacher armour serves multiple functions over ontogeny, from facilitating locomotion, slowing sinking and providing defence.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".