Esocidae Version 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arratia, G., R.A. Scasso & W. Kiessling. 2004. Late Jurassic fishes from Longing Gap, Antarctic Peninsula. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 24(1):41–55. https://doi.org/10.1671/1952-4 Betancur-R. R., R. Broughton, E. Wiley, K. Carpenter, J. López, C. Li, N. Holcroft, D. Arcila, M. Sanciangco, J. Cureton II, F. Zhang, T. Buser, M. Campbell, J. Ballesteros, A. Roa-Varon, S. Willis, W. Borden, T. Rowley, P. Reneau, D. Hough, G. Lu, T. Grande, G. Arratia & G. Ortí. 2013. The Tree of Life and a New Classification of Bony Fishes. PLOS Currents: Tree of Life. http://currents.plos.org/treeoflife/article/the-tree-of-life-and-a-new-classification-of-bony-fishes/ (Accessed 1/5/17). http://doi.org/10.1371/currents.tol.53ba26640df0ccaee75bb165c8c26288 Boschung, H.T. & R.L. Mayden. 2004. Fishes of Alabama. Smithsonian Books, Washington, D.C. 960 pages. Campbell, M.A., J.A. López, T. Sado & M. Miya. 2013. Pike and salmon as sister taxa: detailed intraclade resolution and divergence time estimation of Esociformes + Salmoniformes based on whole mitochondrial genome sequences. Gene 530(1):57–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gene.2013.07.068 Crossman, E.J. & C.R. Harington. 1970. Pleistocene pike, Esox lucius, and Esox sp., from the Yukon Territory and Ontario. Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences 7(4):1130–1138. https://doi.org/10.1139/e70-107 Dickinson, W.C. 1986. Identification and analysis of ichthyofaunal remains from late Pleistocene-Holocene deposits of Cheek Bend Cave (40MU261), Maury County, Tennessee. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Tennessee–Knoxville. 209 pages. Gaudant, J. 2012. An attempt at the palaeontological history of the European mudminnows (Pisces, Teleostei, Umbridae). Neues Jahrbuch für Geologie und Paläontologie – Abhandlungen 263(2):93–109. https://doi.org/10.1127/0077-7749/2012/0214 Goodrich, E.S. 1930. Studies on the structure & development of vertebrates. Macmillan, London. 837 pages. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.82144 Grande, L. 1999. The first Esox (Esocidae: Teleostei) from the Eocene Green River Formation, and a brief review of esocid fishes. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology 19(2):271–292. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724634.1999.10011141 Grande, T., H. Laten & J.A. López. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships of extant esocid species (Teleostei: Salmnoniformes) based on morphological and molecular characters. Copeia 2004(4):743–757. Huxley, T.H. 1880. On the application of the laws of evolution to the arrangement of the Vertebrata, and more particularly of the Mammalia. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1880:649–662. Jacquemin, S.J., J.A. Ebersole, W.C. Dickinson & C.N. Ciampaglio. 2016. Late Pleistocene fishes of the Tennessee River Basin: an analysis of a late Pleistocene freshwater fish fauna from Bell Cave (site ACb-2) in Colbert County, Alabama, USA. PeerJ 4:e1648. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1648 Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema Naturae, Ed. X. (Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Tomus I. Editio decima, reformata). Laurentii Salvii, Holmiae. 824 pages. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.542 Marić, S., D. Stanković, J. Wanzenböck, R. Šanda, T. Erős, P. Takács, A. Specziár, N. Sekulić, D. Bănăduc, M. Ćaleta, I. Trombitsky, L. Galambos, S. Sipos & A. Snoj. 2017. Phylogeography and population genetics of the European mudminnow (Umbra krameri) with a time-calibrated phylogeny for the family Umbridae. Hydrobiologia 792(1):151–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-016-3051-9 Mitchill, S.L. 1824. Masquinongy of the Great Lakes. Minerva, New York 1(16):297. Müller, J. 1845. Über den Bau und die Grenzen der Ganoiden, und über das natürliche System der Fische. Archiv für Naturgeschichte 11(1):91–141. Nelson, J.S., T.C. Grande & M.V.H. Wilson. 2016. Fishes of the World, 5th edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 707 pages. Page, L.M. & B.M. Burr. 2011. Peterson Field Guide to Freshwater Fishes, second edition. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York. 688 pages. Patterson, C. & D.E Rosen. 1977. Review of the ichthyodectiform and other Mesozoic teleost fishes and the theory and practice of classifying fossils. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 158:83–172. Pinna, M.C.C. de. 1996. Teleostean monophyly. Pages 147–162. In: M.L.J. Stiassny, L.R. Parenti & G.D. Johnson (editors). Interrelationships of Fishes. Academic Press, San Diego. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012670950-6/50008-4 Rafinesque, C.S. 1815. Analyse de la nature, ou tableau de l’univers et des corps organizes. Per le stampe di Sanfilippo, Palermo. 224 pages. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.106607 Regan, C.T. 1923. The skeleton of Lepidosteus, with remarks on the origin and evolution of the lower neopterygian fishes. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 1923(1–2):445–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1096-3642.1923.tb02191.x Rosen, D.E. 1985. An essay on euteleostean classification. American Museum Novitates 2827: 1–57. Santini, F., L.J. Harmon, G. Carnevale & M.E. Alfaro. 2009. Did genome duplication drive the origin of teleosts? A comparative study of diversification in ray-finned fishes. BMC Evolutionary Biology 9:194. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-9-194 Smith, G.R. 1981. Late Cenozoic freshwater fishes of North America. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 12:163–193. Wilson, M.V.H. 1984. Osteology of the Palaeocene teleost Esox tiemani. Palaeontology 27(3):597–608. Wilson, M.V.H., D.B. Brinkman & A.G. Neuman. 1992. Cretaceous Esocoidei (Teleostei): early radiation of the pikes in North American fresh waters. Journal of Paleontology 66(5):839–846. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022336000020849
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.676 | 0.526 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".