Causes and consequences of arm damage in the sea star<i>Leptasterias hexactis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Leptasterias hexactis, a sea star common in rocky intertidal areas of Puget Sound, Washington, often has damaged or missing arms. We measured the frequency of arm damage in 5 populations and examined the causes and costs of the damage. Between 30 and 46% of L. hexactis found at the study sites were missing arms or parts of arms. Some of the damage, particularly when only parts of arms were missing, may result from physical disturbance (e.g., crushing). Most arm damage, however, appears to result from predation by the crab Cancer oregonensis. The ability to lose, or autotomize, arms has adaptive significance if it saves a sea star from death. However, it also carries costs. The greatest cost was a decrease in reproduction. Leptasterias hexactis missing arms showed a 44-69% drop in egg production 7 months after arm loss. The effect was still evident during the next reproductive season (19 months after arm loss). We estimate that natural levels of arm damage could decrease the reproductive output of a population of L. hexactis by 7-10%.
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".