Salinity preference in killifish (Fundulus spp.)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fish normally live in salinities ranging from 0 ppt (freshwater) to ~35 ppt (seawater) but most fish can only inhabit fresh or saltwater making salinity a main factor in determining their distribution.While euryhaline fish can tolerate the osmoregulatory challenges that occur with changes in environmental salinity, they exhibit preference for particular salinities.The Common Killifish (Fundulus heteroclitus) is a small estuarine fish that normally prefers brackish water (~20 ppt).In brackish water where they overlap, F. heteroclitus can co-occur and hybridize with Banded Killifish (Fundulus diaphanus), a fish that prefers freshwater.The first goal of this thesis was to set-up and optimize the Loligo® ShuttleBox system to measure salinity preference of the two species to compare this new, more accurate system to previously published data.The second goal was to determine the salinity preference of wild juvenile F1 F. diaphanus x F. heteroclitus hybrids.The system consists of two connected choice tanks and a video-tracking system that allows salinity to be automatically increased or decreased depending on fish location.I predicted that the salinity preference of F. heteroclitus would be 20 ppt, F. diaphanus would be 1 ppt, and wild juvenile hybrids would be ~9.5 ppt, consistent with an additive genetic basis for salinity preference.Future work should include completing additional trials using wild F. heteroclitus, F. diaphanus, and hybrids as well as lab bred pure and reciprocal F1 hybrid crosses to gain a better understanding of the role of parental effects on salinity preference.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".