Responses of crayfish to a reflective environment depend on dominance status
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous work has shown that the reflection from aquarium walls can modify several aspects of crayfish behaviour, but only if the crayfish are socialized. Such socialization is known to generate a dominance hierarchy composed of dominant and subordinate animals. The present study was conducted to determine whether or not behavioural responses to reflection depend on dominance status. Procambarus clarkii (Girard, 1852) were maintained in pairs for 2 weeks to establish dominance ranks and were subsequently observed in an aquarium in which half of the walls were lined with mirrors and the other half were lined with nonreflective plastic. Dominant crayfish spent more time on the reflective side of the aquarium than on the nonreflective side, and they spent more time in reflective corners than in nonreflective corners. Dominant crayfish also turned more frequently on the reflective side and crossed the tank more frequently toward reflective walls. Such differences in behaviour were not observed for subordinate crayfish or for crayfish that had been isolated for 2 weeks. Subordinate crayfish exhibited more reverse walking on the reflective side of the aquarium than on the nonreflective side, but crayfish in the other groups did not. Thus, responses of crayfish to reflection depend on dominance status.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".