Bibliographic record
Abstract
Durophagous crabs successfully hunt hard-shelled prey by subjecting them to extremely strong biting forces using their claws. Here I show that, for a given body mass, six species of Cancer crabs (Cancer antennarius, Cancer branneri, Cancer gracilis, Cancer magister, Cancer oregonensis and Cancer productus) were able to exert mean maximum biting forces greater than the forces exerted in any other activity by most other animals. These strong biting forces were in part a result of the high stresses (740-1350 kN m(-2)) generated by the claw closer muscle. Furthermore, the maximum muscle stress increased with increasing mean resting sarcomere length (10-18 microm) for the closer muscle of the claws of these six Cancer species. A more extensive analysis incorporating published data on muscle stresses in other animal groups revealed that stress scales isometrically with the resting sarcomere length among species, as predicted by the sliding filament model of muscle contraction. Therefore, muscle or filament traits other than a very long mean sarcomere length need not be invoked in explaining the high stresses generated by crustacean claws.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".