MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391805079 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.5410.4.1

Non-marine Ostracoda (Crustacea) collected from pet shops and a hobbyist’s aquaria in Japan, including two new species

2024· article· en· W4391805079 on OpenAlexaff
Robin J. Smith, Hirokazu Ozawa, S. Nishida, S. Nakai

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomy
Canadian institutionsNutrasource
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOstracodBiologyAlienFaunaCrustaceanEcologyFisheryZoologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Samples obtained from pet shops and a hobbyists aquaria in Japan have revealed a diverse non-marine ostracod fauna, consisting of 19 species, all contaminants of aquaria stocked with exotic fish, shrimps and/or aquatic plants. Of these, six are newly recorded for Japan, including two new species, belonging to the genera Pseudostrandesia and Tanycypris. Pseudostrandesia tenebrarum Smith & Ozawa, 2021, previously suspected to be an alien species in Japan, was again found in pet shops in this study. We also report living specimens of Potamocypris acuminata Fuhrmann & Goth, 2011, a species previously only known from Pleistocene deposits of Germany. The six new records for Japan reported herein are likely alien species as evidenced by previous records or congeneric species, with origins in East Asia, South East Asia, and the Americas. Thus, there are now seven ostracod species recognized as probable alien hitchhikers in the Japanese pet trade. This study highlights that the pet trade is a viable route for hitchhiking ostracod species to enter Japan, and such species have the potential to become invasive.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicSubterranean biodiversity and taxonomyFrench-language works237,207