Lepeophtheirus salmonis (Krøyer, 1837): second nauplius and copepodid locomotor appendages, surface areas and possible appendage functions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Locomotor appendage-body relationships were used to examine whether swimming or reduction in sinking rate is the more important function in the second nauplius and copepodid stages ofLepeophtheirus salmonis(Krøyer, 1837). Except for the similarity in swimming appendage surface areas without setae, the appendages of the two stages are morphologically distinct. Although the nauplius is smaller than the copepodid it has long slender appendages that, with setae, provide greater total surface area than the paddle-shaped copepodid thoracic legs. Copepodid thoracic legs are more similar to those used for swimming by planktonic copepods although with more limited propulsion capability. Naupliar appendages project from the body while copepodid appendages can be folded against the ventral surface, improving hydrodynamic flow as well as body position after attachment to a host. Both copepodid and naupliar appendages are of sufficient size that they should provide escape velocities of more than 100 mm ⋅ s−1. The nature and display of the naupliar appendages suggest they could be used to reduce sinking rate by as much as 64%, reducing the need to swim to maintain a suitable location in the water. Although copepodid thoracic legs could reduce sinking rate by over 40%, their position on the ventral surface and the nature of other appendages suggests a more important use, for orientation and attachment once a host is located.
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 | 0.001 | 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".