Effects of Acetic Acid and Morphine in Shore Crabs, Carcinus maenas: Implications for the Possibility of Pain in Decapods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
, including reduced pressing against the sides of the enclosure and more rubbing and picking at the mouth parts and, at least for a short time, more defensive displays. Subsequent injection of acetic acid into one rear leg caused rubbing of the injected leg and the injected leg was held vertically off the ground. These activities directed at or involving the specific leg are consistent with previous observations of directed behaviour following noxious stimuli and are consistent with the idea that decapods experience pain. Further, acetic acid but not injection of water induced autotomy of the injected leg in these animals. Because autotomy is temporally associated with directed behaviour, it is possible that the autotomy is a pain-related response. Acetic acid is clearly a noxious substance when applied to decapods. However, morphine had no effect on the activities associated with acetic acid injection and thus there is no evidence for an analgesic effect. Further, the injection of acetic acid did not interfere with behavioural effects of morphine. The activities directed towards the site of injection are like those observed with injection, or with external application, of various noxious substances and the present study adds to a growing body of knowledge about possible pain in decapods.
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 | 0.000 | 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".