MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032126228 · doi:10.1017/s0025315405010945h

Value of indicators for assessing recent mating in brachyuran crabs

2005· article· en· W2032126228 on OpenAlexaff
Céline Duluc, Bernard Sainte‐Marie, Jean‐Claude Brêthes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à RimouskiFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpermathecaBiologyMatingSpermatophoreZoologyContext (archaeology)SpermFemale sperm storageEcologySperm competition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methods for assessing the occurrence and recency of mating are important for the management and conservation of exploited brachyuran crabs. Using multiparous females of the snow crab Chionoecetes opilio , we evaluated by experiment the efficacy of three indicators of recent mating: a white deposit in the spermathecae, extended mate-guarding, and fresh grasping marks on the female pereiopods. This was done by contrasting sperm counts between the left and the right spermatheca of females that were exposed to males with the right gonopod ablated, at treatment sex ratios of 20[female]:3[male ] or 50[female]:3[male ]. We expected that sperm reserves would be balanced between the two spermathecae of non-mated females and larger in the right than in the left spermatheca of mated females. Although no mating indicator was infallible, the presence of a white deposit was the most accurate because it maximized the median difference of sperm counts between the two spermathecae for the group of presumably mated females and minimized it for the group of presumably non-mated females. The use of grasping marks overestimated the mating frequency and resulted in the misclassification of a large proportion of females. Extended mate-guarding was a slightly better mating indicator than grasping marks, but it is not practical for field studies. Classification errors associated with each indicator can be explained mostly by female and male behaviours and may vary in magnitude with sociosexual context.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.360

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations10
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Marine Biological Association of the United KingdomSame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207