MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511911411 · doi:10.5539/ijb.v8n4p12

Reproductive Patterns of Terrestrial Isopods (Crustacea, Isopoda, Oniscidea) from Uruguay

2016· article· en· W2511911411 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Analisa Waller, Ana Verdi

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine Biology and Ecology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFecundityBiologyCephalothoraxIsopodaAnimal scienceReproductionPopulationCrustaceanEcologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Armadillidium vulgare (Latreille, 1884) and Armadillidium nasatum (Schultz, 1961) are among the most common species of terrestrial isopods in Uruguay. The reproductive pattern of these species was studied, for first time, on a natural population at Department of San Jose (Uruguay) from June 2010 to July 2011. A total of 9136 individuals were sampled, of these 7010 were A. vulgare and 2126 were A.nasatum. Adults of A. vulgare were present throughout the year and juveniles appeared from February to November. Juveniles and adults of A. nasatumappeared from January to October, and practically disappeared from November to December. For both species ovigerous females were collected from spring to summer (October to March), this would indicate a seasonal reproduction followed by a sexual rest. In A. vulgare reproductive females cephalothorax width that varied between 1.7 to 3 mm, average fecundity was equal to 39 ± 5 eggs and average fertility was equal to 27 ± 4. In A. nasatum cephalothorax width of reproductive females oscillated between 1.5 to 2.9 mm and the average fecundity was 44 ± 5 eggs. For both species, fecundity and fertility were positively correlated with the size of the females. The incubation period ( = 13 days) and the mancas born ( = 21) were similar for both species.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of BiologySame topicMarine Biology and Ecology ResearchFrench-language works237,207