MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012741829 · doi:10.1080/10236240902781456

The role of vision in host-finding behaviour of the ectoparasite <i>Gnathia falcipenis</i> (Crustacea; Isopoda)

2009· article· en· W2012741829 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Nagel

Bibliographic record

VenueMarine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyIsopodaNocturnalEcologyForagingPredationCoral reef fishRange (aeronautics)Host (biology)CrustaceanCoral reef

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gnathiids are common isopod crustaceans that feed on blood and plasma from a wide range of reef fishes. Although parasitic gnathiid isopods are active during both day and night on the Great Barrier Reef, little is known about their behaviour and ecology due to difficulty with species identification. Information about nocturnal gnathiids is especially lacking because of logistical constraints. This study shows that a gnathiid species captured at night, Gnathia falcipenis, has a larger eye diameter than that of a taxonomically undescribed sympatric diurnal species, Gnathia sp. A. When tested in a phototaxis experiment with this diurnal species, G. falcipenis moved towards a light source at much lower levels of light intensity than the diurnal species. Their willingness to feed in lab tests with live host fish was also strongly linked to light conditions. This gnathiid appears to have visual adaptations that have evolved for foraging under very low light levels, and is probably completely nocturnal. These results are discussed with reference to the availability of different host fishes during the day and night, the risk of predation that gnathiids may encounter during these periods, and the possibility of an unappreciated diversity of gnathiid taxa that may have a range of foraging strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.242
Threshold uncertainty score0.282

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMarine and Freshwater Behaviour and PhysiologySame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207