MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113167386 · doi:10.1002/mrd.10103

Evolution of octopod sperm II: Comparison of acrosomal morphogenesis in <i>Eledone</i> and <i>Octopus</i>

2002· article· en· W3113167386 on OpenAlex
Enric Ribes, Pepita Gimenez‐Bonafé, M J Zamora, Ángel F. González, Harold E. Kasinsky, Manel Chiva

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueMolecular Reproduction and Development · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicCephalopods and Marine Biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAcrosomeBiologySpermatidSpermiogenesisOrganelleMorphogenesisSpermCell biologyAnatomyBotanyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The first stages of acrosome development during Eledone cirrhosa spermiogenesis are similar to that in Octopus vulgaris , and comprise the initial elongation of both organelles. However, the acrosome in E. cirrhosa does not continue its elongation as it does in O. vulgaris . Instead, its length remains fixed and it undergoes a process of helicoidization that includes the entire organelle. In each spermatid, helicoidization of the E. cirrhosa acrosome occurs simultaneously with helicoidization of the nucleus. The acrosome is associated with special structures that probably are involved in the helical torsion of the organelle. We propose a hypothesis to explain the evolutionary relationship between the acrosomes of O. vulgaris and E. cirrhosa , particularly as it is influenced by nucleomorphogenesis and microtubular contraction. Mol. Reprod. Dev. 62: 363–367, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.531
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it