Social status influences responses to unfamiliar conspecifics in a cooperatively breeding fish
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In group living animals, individuals may visit other groups. The costs and benefits of such visits for the members of a group will depend on the attributes and intentions of the visitor, and the social status of responding group members. Using wild groups of the cooperatively breeding cichlid fish ( Neolamprologus pulcher ), we compared group member responses to unfamiliar ‘visiting’ conspecifics in control groups and in experimentally manipulated groups from which a subordinate the same size and sex as the visitor was removed. High-ranking fish were less aggressive towards visitors in removal groups than in control groups; low-ranking subordinates were more aggressive in the removal treatment. High-ranking females and subordinates the same size and sex as the visitor responded most aggressively toward the visitor in control groups. These results suggest that visitors are perceived as potential group joiners, and that such visits impose different costs and benefits on current group members.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it