MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399388661 · doi:10.3390/ani14111705

Effects of Acetic Acid and Morphine in Shore Crabs, Carcinus maenas: Implications for the Possibility of Pain in Decapods

2024· article· en· W4399388661 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Stuart Barr, Robert W. Elwood

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsAutotomyCarcinus maenasMorphineNoxious stimulusAcetic acidAnesthesiaOdorAnalgesicChemistryCrustaceanMedicineNociceptionAnatomyBiologyEcologyInternal medicineDecapodaBiochemistryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

, 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.304 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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 venueAnimalsSame topicNeurobiology and Insect Physiology ResearchFrench-language works237,207