MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399793455 · doi:10.1093/icb/icae075

Diversity of Intraspecific Patterns of Brain Region Size Covariation in Fish

2024· article· en· W4399793455 on OpenAlexaff
Caleb J. Axelrod, Ellen M. Urquhart, Pria N. Mahabir, Bruce A. Carlson, Swanne P. Gordon

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrative and Comparative Biology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersCornell UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyIntraspecific competitionBrain sizeTraitEvolutionary biologyPhylogenetic treeEcologyVertebrateGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traits often do not evolve in isolation or vary independently of other traits. Instead, they can be affected by covariation, both within and across species. However, the importance of within-species trait covariation and, critically, the degree to which it varies between species has yet to be thoroughly studied. Brain morphology is a trait of great ecological and behavioral importance, with regions that are hypothesized to vary in size based on behavioral and cognitive demands. Sizes of brain regions have also been shown to covary with each other across various taxa. Here, we test the degree to which covariation in brain region sizes within species has been conserved across 10 teleost fish species. These 10 species span five orders, allowing us to examine how phylogenetic proximity influences similarities in intraspecific trait covariation. Our results showed a trend that similar patterns of brain region size covariation occur in more closely related species. Interestingly, there were certain brain region pairs that showed similar levels of covariation across all species regardless of phylogenetic distance, such as the telencephalon and optic tectum, while others, such as the olfactory bulb and the hypothalamus, varied more independently. Ultimately, the patterns of brain region covariation shown here suggest that evolutionary mechanisms or constraints can act on specific brain regions independently, and that these constraints can change over evolutionary time.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrative and Comparative BiologySame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207