MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2044238103 · doi:10.1080/00288330.2003.9517205

DNA and morphological identification of an invasive swimming crab, <i>Charybdis japonica</i> , in New Zealand waters

2003· article· en· W2044238103 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Peter Smith, W. R. Webber, S. M. McVeagh, Graeme J. Inglis, Nick Gust

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesNational University of SingaporeMcGill University
KeywordsJaponicaIntertidal zoneBiologyInvasive speciesRange (aeronautics)DNA barcodingMitochondrial DNAEcologyBotanyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mitochondrial DNA sequences were used to identify an invasive swimming crab found in Waitemata Harbour, New Zealand. A 457 base sequence of the cytochrome oxidase 1 gene was compared in New Zealand specimens and nine species of Charybdis from Australia and Asia. The New Zealand specimens aligned with C. japonica . The diagnostic morphological characters of C. japonica were also checked in 54 specimens of the species collected in Waitemata Harbour, and concur with the mtDNA result. This is the first record of C. japonica establishing populations outside its native range. C. japonica , along with C. hellerii and the Lessepsian migrant C. longicollis , are the only known invasive species of Charybdis. C. japonica and C. hellerii are two of the few Charybdis species that inhabit the intertidal zone, and it is likely that the intertidal characteristics of these species contribute to their success as invasive species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations45
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater ResearchSame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207