MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3152880046 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2020-0290

Ontogenetic shifts in natural diet, chelae, and mandibles of the omnivorous freshwater crab <i>Aegla uruguayana</i>: linking morphology and function

2021· article· en· W3152880046 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
María Florencia Viozzi, Juan Manuel Cabrera, Federico Giri, Débora de Azevedo Carvalho, Verónica Williner

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyTrophic levelSetaOntogenyOmnivoreMorphological analysisAnatomyMorphology (biology)ZoologyJuvenileEcomorphologyEcologyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyze whether ontogenetic diet change in Aegla uruguayana Schmitt, 1942 is related to the morphological changes in chelae and mandibles. We use a combination of scanning electron microscope (SEM) observation, dietary composition analysis (stomach observation, trophic niche amplitude, trophic overlap, and feeding strategy), and geometric morphometric tools (discriminant analysis and two-block partial least squares analysis). The two structures analyzed by SEM show differences between juvenile and adult specimens, both in their cuticle and morphology specializations. In juveniles, the absence of the lobular tooth is the notable feature. However, in adult sizes, it is marked development. Both groups have simple setae with infracuticular articulation and denticles with different arrangements between groups. In the incisive mandible process, the teeth and spines present sharper points in juveniles and considerable wear in adults. Aegla uruguayana presented two trophic strategies: a profile of more predatory traits when younger and mostly detritivorous when adults. The analysis of geometric morphometry substantiates the patterns observed in SEM and stomach contents analysis. The morphology of smaller specimens is associated with the consumption of animal items (ephemeropteran larvae and cladocerans), while the morphology of larger specimens is related to the consumption of plant remains.

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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicCrustacean biology and ecologyFrench-language works237,207