Experimental setup influences the cardiovascular responses of decapod crustaceans to environmental change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of different holding methods on heart rate (HR) changes in the green crab, Carcinus maenas (Linnaeus, 1758), were investigated. Green crabs were held in perforated plastic boxes (with or without a layer of sand) suspended above the bottom of the tank or strapped to a weighted plastic grate. The HR of green crabs classified as unrestrained (plastic box with or without sand) dropped more rapidly compared with restrained (hanging from band, strapped to grate) green crabs. Within 1 h, unrestrained green crabs exhibited periods of cardiac pausing accounting for between 8% and 14% of the hourly time. In contrast, restrained green crabs rarely exhibited cardiac pausing. When the green crabs were subjected to a temperature increase (10–30 °C), the HR of unrestrained green crabs reached higher levels than that of the restrained animals. The four restraining methods were also used to investigate cardiac responses to hypoxia. During progressive hypoxia (100%–20% oxygen), the HR of unrestrained green crabs declined to lower levels than that of the restrained animals. The restraining methods appeared to be more stressful for the green crabs that maintained elevated HRs and were less able to respond to environmental change compared with green crabs that could move freely within a small chamber. This suggests that even subtle changes in experimental design may alter physiological responses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".