Effects of body size, body condition, and breeding state on responses to alarm cues by fathead minnows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is often considerable variation in the intensity of behavioural responses of prey to predation cues. The purpose of the current study was to determine the role of standard length (a correlate of age), body condition (a measure of energy reserves, calculated by mass/(standard length)3), and gonadosomatic index (state of reproduction, calculated by gonad mass / body mass) in the responses of fathead minnows (Pimephales promelas Rafinesque, 1820) to damage-release alarm cues. Our data indicate that during the nonbreeding season longer/older minnows exhibited significantly increased antipredator responses compared with younger individuals. However, the significance of these correlations ceased during the breeding season. Data from the same trials failed to reveal a significant correlation between the intensity of antipredator behaviour and the body condition before or during the breeding season; the intensity of a minnow’s antipredator response was also not significantly correlated with its gonadosomatic index. These data are important in understanding factors affecting antipredator behaviour of minnows, as well as aiding researchers in determining potential time of year confounds in future studies.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".