Tanaididae (Crustacea, Tanaidacea, Tanaidomorpha, Tanaidoidea) on a Floating Dock, West Beach, Adelaide, South Australia: Introduced or Indigenous?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floating artificial structures provide sites for fouling communities and favourable habitat for the establishment of non-indigenous species. Two species of Tanaididae dominated crustacean biota in a one year time-series sampling of macroalgae on the floating dock at the West Beach boat ramp, Adelaide, South Australia. This paper provides identifications for these two species and discusses inter- and intra-species variability considering the available body of morphological and molecular information. We have given one species a new species designation, Tanais adelaidensis n. sp. The other has a 655 nucleotide CO1 sequence matching that of Hexapleomera sasuke Tanabe Kakui, 2019 collected in Japan, also matching a shorter CO1 sequence for a described Zeuxo Templeton, 1840 species from the Eastern Mediterranean. This work underlines the utility and need for detailed morphological and molecular data to resolve the taxonomy and biogeography of fouling and holdfast community tanaids, particularly those that have the demonstrated potential for a history of transport between geographically distant sites.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".