MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047340916 · doi:10.1139/z03-083

Sexual difference in modes of selection on the pleopods of crayfish (Decapoda: Astacoidea) revealed by the allometry of developmentally homologous traits

2003· article· en· W2047340916 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Naoko Kato, Tadashi Miyashita

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHokkaido University
KeywordsBiologyCrayfishAllometryAnatomyDecapodaSpermatophoreSexual selectionCrustaceanSelection (genetic algorithm)ZoologyEcologyMating

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Crayfish have five pairs of abdominal limbs called pleopods. In males, the first and second pairs of pleopods are used for transferring spermatophores to the female during copulation. The remaining pleopods in males have no obvious function. Female crayfish use their pleopods to carry eggs. Accordingly, it is expected that the selection pressures that act on the pleopods differ between males and females. To test this hypothesis, we estimated modes of selection on pleopods in two species of crayfish (Procambarus clarkii and Pacifastacus trowbridgii) by comparing allometric relationships in functional and nonfunctional pleopods. Since pleopods are serially homologous traits, developmental constraints on these traits appear to be minimal. The lengths of the first male pleopods, used in copulation, showed lower allometric values and less dispersion around the regression line, suggesting that they have been under stabilizing selection. This likely occurs because the major selective force is the ability of males to copulate with females of various sizes. The pleopods of females showed higher allometric values than pleopods of males without an assigned function. This suggests that the pleopods of females have been under directional selection, most likely because they are longer and can therefore carry more eggs.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207