Shell Strength and Carapace Size in Non-Adult and Adult Male Snow Crab (Chionoecetes Opilio)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cannibalism occurs in snow crab and has been observed both in the wild and in the laboratory, but crabs larger than 60 mm CW are not killed by large male adult snow crabs either in the wild or in laboratory experiments. We tested the hypothesis that cannibalism failed to occur as smaller snow crabs became large enough to resist the force of larger male snow crabs. Chela force and resistance of the cuticle to loading were compared. Chela, merus, and carapace cuticles differed markedly in mechanical properties. The chela was hard compared to the merus which was the most flexible cuticle. Strength of the cuticle generally increased with size of crab, but decreased markedly at molting and remained low for several months past molting. The mechanical advantage (MA) of the chela was larger in adult than in non-adult snow crabs of similar size. The force of the chela was calculated from MA and previously documented size and contractile force of the closer muscle. Closing force at the first denticle on the dactyl of large male adult snow crabs was large enough to break the cuticle of non-adult and adult snow crab of any size. Only crabs less than 60 mm CW, however, were vulnerable to forces delivered at the tip of the dactyl of large adult, but not of large non-adult, snow crabs. Factors other than strength of the cuticle may explain size-selective cannibalism.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".