Projection and local interneurons in the sixth abdominal ganglion of the sand crab <i>Emerita analoga</i> (Hippidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hippid crabs are adapted for life in the surf zone of exposed sandy beaches, and their tailfan differs from the tailfans of other crustaceans with respect to morphology and motor control and in having nonspiking stretch receptors (NSR). To investigate how these crabs' mechanosensory systems are adapted to this turbulent environment, I used axonal back-filling and intracellular recording with dye-filled microelectrodes to describe afferent projections from the telson and morphologies and physiological responses of intersegmental and local neurons in abdominal ganglion 6 (A6) in Emerita analoga, then compared them with descriptions of corresponding neurons in A6 of crayfish. The density of afferent terminals and the proportion of projection neuron somata is lower in anterior A6 of E. analoga than in crayfish, perhaps correlated with a reduction in hydrodynamic setae. Many interneurons responded to afferent nerve stimulation and displayed activity correlated with levels of A6 motor output. NSR stretch depolarizes unilateral local neurons and terminals of axons entering A6 from the connective and hyperpolarizes bilateral local and projection neurons. The timing and duration of this inhibition would suppress mechanosensory input from the telson during uropod beating (homologue of crayfish's nongiant tail-flipping). Suppression of reafference during uropod beating may have been pivotal for evolution of hippids' ability to move rapidly across the water-sand interface in the slosh zone of sandy beaches. Homologies between A6 neurons in E. analoga and crayfish, suggested by morphological and physiological similarities, indicate that the NSRs connect to a neuronal network regulating exteroceptive input that was inherited from their tail-flipping ancestors.
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".