Hiding time of the hermit crab <i>Calcinus</i> <i>californiensis</i>: observations from different shell types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hermit crabs respond to predators by hiding in their shells. However, retraction may cause the crab to lose hold of the rock and fall through the water column, and the crab may land with the shell aperture in a different orientation. When the shell is aperture down, hermit crabs return to activity by moving their bodies forward and placing their legs on the ground. In contrast, when the shell is aperture up, crabs need to perform a righting maneuver by extending part of their bodies out of the shell, which makes them more vulnerable to predation. The main goal of this study was to examine the hiding time of the hermit crab Calcinus californiensis Bouvier, 1898 in different shell species under these two different situations to better understand the conflict between the cost of staying in hiding and the risk of predation. The study was conducted in rocky tide pools using seven different shell types that reflect different predator protection and resource value to the crab (based on previous studies). We measured the time required to perform the righting maneuver as a measure of the potential risk incurred when returning to activity. The hiding time with the shell aperture down was not affected by shell species. The requirement to carry out a righting maneuver lengthened the hiding time, which varied in the different shell species according to the time required to recover the natural position. The potential risks associated with the righting time, the protection offered by the shells, and the resource value played an important role in the hiding time of the crabs using different shells. This study shows that hermit crabs are aware of the attributes of the shell and use this information to make decisions about how long to stay hidden after being threatened.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".