MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Hormonal regulation of feeding in the Dungeness crab, <i>Cancer magister</i>

2008· article· en· W2291296461 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel L. Curtis, Iain J. McGaw

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth
Canadian institutionsBamfield Marine Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalinityBiologyHormoneDecapodaEstuaryCrustaceanOsmoregulationZoologyEndocrinologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite being classed as a weak osmoregulator, adult Cancer magister often venture into estuaries, presumably to feed. Nevertheless acute low salinity exposure results in both a decrease in the likelihood of feeding and the amount of food consumed. We previously hypothesized that the reduced feeding activity may be the result of energetic limitation due to the concomitant demands associated with osmoregulation. However, there appeared to be no additional increase in metabolic rate when crabs digested during hyposaline exposure. Based on this data we hypothesized that feeding motivation and food consumption may be under hormonal control, rather than being energetically limited. Following eye stalk ablation (thereby removing the hormone producing sinus gland), the amount of food that crabs consumed in 50% SW was greater than that of intact crabs. Ablated crabs even attempted to feed in freshwater, whereas intact crabs would not feed in salinities below 40% SW. Eye stalk removal does not inhibit the crab's ability to detect low salinity. This data then suggests that low salinity exposure may be a contributing factor in controlling the release of hormones that regulate the feeding response.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicAquaculture Nutrition and Growth→French-language works237,207→