Scanning electron microscope study of the development of mandibular structure and the molar surface morphology of<i>Branchinella maduraiensis</i>and<i>Streptocephalus dichotomus</i>(Crustacea, Anostraca)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present study, the molar surface morphology of Streptocephalus dichotomus Baird, 1860 and Branchinella maduraiensis Raj, 1961 is analyzed and correlated with the distribution of these species in ephemeral pools. The larval stages of S. dichotomus are characterized by scanning electron microscopy in relation to their feeding physiology, which shows their morphological complexity during developmental stages. The larval mandible consists of a coxa with a three-segmented palp, and further development leads to its gradual transition into the adult mandible. Muscles involved in mandibular movement exhibit rotatory and counter-rotatory movement, which enhances the grinding of food materials. Analysis of the molar surface morphology of B. maduraiensis and S. dichotomus reveals that the mandibles are asymmetrical. Detailed analysis of the topography of the molar illustrates specific structural differences between the species. Gut content analysis also perfectly matches the molar morphology of these species, confirming that B. maduraiensis handles zooplankton more preferentially than S. dichotomus. Our investigation of these fairy shrimps provides information on their molar surface morphology and feeding biology, which increases the understanding of their coexistence.
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".