MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anti-predatory behaviour of wild-caught vs captive-bred freshwater angelfish, Pterophyllum scalare

2011· article· en· W1488488101 on OpenAlexaff
R. El Balaa, Gabriel Blouin‐Demers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Ichthyology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyPredatorPredationHatcheryCaptive breedingZoologyDomesticationFisheryEcologyCaptivityFish <Actinopterygii>HabitatEndangered species

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environments and experiences encountered in early life stages of animals shape their adult behaviour. When environments are maintained for several generations, differential selection forces act upon individuals to select those most fit to the particular conditions. As such, differences in the behaviour of captive bred and wild caught individuals have been observed recurrently. In fish, hatchery raised individuals tend to seek refuge less, making them more vulnerable to predators. We tested the hypothesis that captive breeding induces non-adaptive changes in behaviour of freshwater angelfish, Pterophyllum scalare. Wild-caught and captive-bred fish were exposed to a natural predator and measured for their anti-predator behaviours; no differences were found in behaviour under control conditions. When exposed to a natural predator, wild-caught fish exhibited significantly shorter freezing durations than captive-bred fish, and took significantly shorter time to resume normal behaviour. No differences in the time taken to initiate investigations of the predator were detected. The results demonstrate that captive-bred fish respond differently than their wild counterparts when exposed to a natural predator, and that this domestication has implications for captive rearing programmes.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations21
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied IchthyologySame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207