Development of the retinal tapetum lucidum \nof the walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The development of the retinal tapetum \nlucidum within the cells of the retinal pigment epithelium \n(RPE) has been investigated by both light and electron \nmicroscopy in the walleye (Stizostedion vitreum vitreum) \nin specimens ranging in total length from 25-140 mm. In \naddition changes in the arrangement of the photoreceptors \n(both rods and cones) in both light and darkadaptation \nhave also been studied. At 25 mm no \nevidence of a tapetum is present. At about 30 mm it \nmakes its initial appearance as granular bodies formed \nwithin the apical smooth endoplasmic reticulum (SER) \ncisternae of the RPE cells in the superior temporal \nfundus. The developing tapetum then spreads \nperipherally and continues to thicken in existing areas. \nBy 90 mm it is well established throughout the fundus but \nalways appears better developed in the superior fundus. \nBy 125-140 mm it is essentially adult in appearance. At \n60-70 mm the rods and cones begin to form bundles \nproducing macroreceptors of 20-30 photoreceptors. In \ndark-adaptation the rod bundles are retracted and have \none or more cone cells centrally located in each bundle, \nwith the bundles separated from one another by \nmelanosomes. Initially when no tapetal material is \npresent, post-larva1 walleye are positively phototactic \nand feed on zooplankton. In the adult condition when a \ntapetum lucidum and large macroreceptors are present, \nthe walleye is negatively phototactic and feeds almost \nexclusively on larger organisms such as other fish.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".