Behavior, Growth and Survival of Stage V Lobsters (Homarus Americanus) in Relation to Shelter Availability and Lobster Density
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of 2 levels of shelter availability (8 or 32 shelters) and of 3 levels of intraspecific density (5, 15, or 30 individuals per 0.5 m 2) on the behavior, survival and growth of stage V lobsters over a period of h 25 days were examined through controlled laboratory experiments. Dominance interactions were apparent in all treatments and only certain lobsters gained access to shelter in the medium- and high-density treatments. Lobsters spent more than 95% of their time in shelter when possible, and expressed significantly greater fidelity to one shelter in the 8-shelter treatment compared to the 32-shelter treatment. Shelter availability and lobster density had no effect on the incidence of molting or on the mean size of lobsters at experiment's end. The proportion of injured lobsters was independent of shelter availability, but was positively related to density. Lobsters were most likely to die after having molted and percent mortality was significantly greater at low density and in the 32-shelter treatment than in other treatments, probably due to a stronger and more consistent dominance hierarchy. Overall, the findings suggest that settlers may interact, that the frequency and intensity of interactions may be modified by relative shelter availability and lobster density, and that such interactions may contribute to determine a cohort's fate.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".