MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4312946582 · doi:10.47605/tapro.v5i1.85

GASTROPOD SHELL UTILIZATION PREFERENCES OF HERMIT CRAB Clibanarius zebra (DANA, 1852) (DIOGENIDAE: ANOMURA)

2013· article· en· W4312946582 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J.N. Trivedi, S. Arya, K.D. Vachhrajan

Bibliographic record

VenueTAPROBANICA The Journal of Asian Biodiversity · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFish Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNelson Mandela Metropolitan UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsHermit crabAnomuraBiologyEcologyIntertidal zoneZoologyRange (aeronautics)DecapodaFisheryCrustacean

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of the present study was to characterize the patterns of gastropod shell utilization by the hermit crab Clibanarius zebra from four different sites along the Saurashtra coast, Gujarat state, India. A total of 404 individuals of hermit crab were captured (223 males, 147 females and 34 ovigerous females), occupying 22 species of gastropod shells. Maximum species diversity of shells occupied by the crab was observed at Veraval. Amongst all the shell species identified, Cerithium scabridum (36.88 %) was highly occupied by the crab species followed by Astra stellata (11.39 %), Turbo intercostalis (10.64 %), Cerithidia cingulata (9.16 %) and Lunella coronata (7.43 %). Males of C. zebra utilized a wide range of shell species (21 species), while non ovigerous females (13 species) and ovigerous females (7 species) use a specific set of gastropod shell species. The density of live common shell species occupied by C. zebra was also calculated and results revealed that the density of C. scabridum was very high in the intertidal zone compared to other gastropods. This indicates that density of shells may influence the utilization of shells by C. Zebra.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTAPROBANICA The Journal of Asian BiodiversitySame topicFish Biology and Ecology StudiesFrench-language works237,207