MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4252796141 · doi:10.1163/20021975-99990185

Are Morphometrical Approaches Appropriate to Establish Size at Maturity for Male American Lobster, Homarus Americanus?

2001· article· en· W4252796141 on OpenAlexaff
Gérard Y. Conan, Mikio Moriyasu, Michel Comeau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Crustacean Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCrustacean biology and ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologySexual maturityHomarusCarapaceMaturity (psychological)American lobsterSexual dimorphismJuvenileZoologyAllometryEcologyCrustacean

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Study on the size at maturity of male American lobster (Homarus americanus) has traditionally been done based on a linear relationship between chelae size vs. body size assuming that a sharp change in slope occurs at onset of maturity. We analyzed this sexual dimorphism by standard log-linear transformations and bivariate allometric plots as well as by multivariate Principal Components Analysis (PCA) in order to verify the validity of this approach for determining size at maturity. These analyses showed that onset of maturity cannot be detected efficiently by claw morphometry because this secondary sexual character gradually changes from early juvenile stages, contrary to what has been believed. Observation of the presence of spermatozoa in the vasa deferentia (gonadal maturity) showed that 50% gonadal maturity occurred at 49.8 mm of carapace length for male lobster from the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. However, gonadal maturity does not necessarily correspond to the ability to mate (behavioral maturity) in many crustacean species. Therefore, further studies are needed to assess the behavioral maturity to determine the size at maturity for male lobsters.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations33
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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