MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390508163 · doi:10.1080/07924259.2023.2298687

The mytilid bivalve <i>Mytilus trossulus</i> exhibits area-specific proportions of heteromorphic spermatozoa in the Sea of Japan

2024· article· en· W4390508163 on OpenAlexaff
Evegenia Vekhova, Konstantin V. Kiselev, Yana Alexandrova, A. V. Akhmadieva, Yulia Reunova, Arkadiy Reunov

Bibliographic record

VenueInvertebrate Reproduction & Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMytilusMusselContext (archaeology)BayZoologyReproductive biologyEcologyFisheryOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study is devoted to a comparison of the structure and quantitative ratio of heterogeneous spermatozoa of native wild mussels Mytilus trossulus Gould, 1850, collected in four areas of the Peter the Great Bay of the Sea of Japan (the northwestern part of the Pacific Ocean). The mussels were identified as M. trossulus by shell appearance, and the species was confirmed by sequencing the mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I gene (COI). Heteromorphic spermatozoa were found; namely, a total of eight morphs (SPERM1–SPERM8) in M. trossulus. Surprisingly, some of the detected sperm morphs overlap morphologically with the sperms of other mytilids such as M. edulis, Crenomytilus (M.) grayanus and M. coruscus. Possible reasons for this phenomenon are discussed. In each geographic area, the ‘quantitative proportions of heterogeneous spermatozoa’ (QPHS) were unique. It has been suggested that the QPHS score can be considered in the context of its applicability as a biological marker for finding optimal mussel rearing sites.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInvertebrate Reproduction & DevelopmentSame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207