Reflectance of zooplankton and its detectability by fishes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have investigated reflected ultraviolet and polarized light cues from zooplankton and how these optical properties affect their contrast to zooplanktivorous fishes.An optical setup was used to measure the reflectance of three zooplankton species.In conjunction with measures of photoreceptor absorptance and environmental irradiance, the contrast of zooplankton was estimated with respect to the visual systems of rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and zebrafish (Danio rerio).Antagonistic cone mechanisms involving either ultraviolet-sensitive cones or short-wavelength sensitive cones with middle-wavelength sensitive cones and long-wavelength sensitive cones resulted in the greatest contrast of Daphnia to both fishes.When modeling involved polarized irradiance, there were no significant differences in contrast as a function of polarization, likely due to the small sample size of zooplankton analyzed.Overall, the results corroborate previous findings suggesting that shorter wavelength cone mechanisms play crucial roles in enhancing zooplankton detection.
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".