The cleaning goby mutualism: a system without punishment, partner switching or tactile stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the cleanerfish–client mutualism involving the Indo‐Pacific cleaner wrasse Labroides dimidiatus and its reef fish clients, mechanisms such as ‘tactile stimulation’, partner switching and punishment are used by clients to control cheating by cleaners. We sought to establish whether these behaviours are general features of cleaning mutualisms by examining their presence in interactions between Caribbean cleaning gobies ( Elacatinus spp.) and their clients. The cleaning goby–client mutualism bears several similarities to the cleaner wrasse system: clients visit cleaners frequently to have their ectoparasites removed while cleaners depend heavily on these visits for food, and cheating by cleaning gobies is also prevalent. However, our data revealed striking differences between the two cleanerfish systems: clients did not seem to attempt to control cheating by cleaning gobies and cleaning gobies did not perform tactile stimulation on their clients. We suggest three hypotheses that might explain these major differences between both systems, based on differences in mutual dependence between cleaners and clients or cognitive ability of cleaners, differences in costs of being cheated and differences in foraging preferences by cleaners. Interactions between L. dimidiatus and its clients should probably not be seen as the ‘standard’ marine fish cleaning mutualism.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".