MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4296703655 · doi:10.1101/2022.09.20.508658

Armor reduction and pelvic girdle loss in a population of threespine stickleback <i>(Gasterosteus aculeatus</i> ) from western Newfoundland, Canada

2022· preprint· en· W4296703655 on OpenAlexafffundabout
R. J. Scott, Grant E. Haines, C. A. Trask

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversities Space Research AssociationParks Canada
KeywordsSticklebackGasterosteusPopulationBiologyThree-spined sticklebackFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We describe the antipredator armor of a unique population of threespine stickleback ( Gasterosteus aculeatus ) from Narrows Pond in western Newfoundland and compare traits for this population to nearby populations from marine and freshwater systems. After standardizing for length, Narrows Pond stickleback are shallower bodied and have shorter dorsal spines than stickleback from the other populations. Also, though the number of armor plates for Narrows Pond stickleback is greater than for typical low-plate morphs, the size of the lateral plates for Narrows Pond stickleback is much smaller. Finally, most (nearly 75% of sampled individuals) Narrows Pond stickleback do not have a pelvic structure (bilateral pelvic plate, ascending process, and ventral spine) and the remaining individuals have greatly reduced pelvic girdle whereas all individuals from the other populations possessed complete pelvic structures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→