MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320536281 · doi:10.1163/1937240x-00002429

First confirmed report of a primary freshwater crab (Brachyura: Pseudothelphusidae) associated with bromeliads in the Neotropics

2016· article· en· W2320536281 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ingo S. Wehrtmann, Orestes C. Bello González, Célio Magalhães

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crustacean Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidad del ValleUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversidad de Costa RicaNational University of Singapore
KeywordsBiologyFreshwater crabCrustaceanEcologyDecapodaFisheryZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bromeliads can hold water in their axils, which can harbor an astonishing diversity of macro invertebrates, including decapod crustaceans. Except of a casual report from Trinidad, true freshwater crabs in these phytotelmata have been found exclusively in the Old World, and observations in the New World of crabs associated with bromeliads have been limited to sesarmid crabs, non-primary freshwater crabs that generally do not breed in freshwater. Here we report the presence of a true, or primary, freshwater crab in water-filled axils of a bromeliad in the Neotropics. Immature specimens of the pseudothelphusid crab provisionally identified as Epilobocera cf. gilmanii (Smith, 1870) were collected from inside the bromeliad Hohenbergia penduliflora (A. Richard) Mez. in western Cuba. Pseudothelphusid crabs have developed additional respiratory structures, which make them suitable candidates for a life in phytotelmic microhabitats. It is still uncertain whether in Cuba these crabs actually breed in phytotelmata or only use this microhabitat during their early life stages.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations7
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Crustacean BiologySame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207