Palatability of the Larvae of Three Species of Lithobates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While unpalatability in general is well-known to provide prey protection against predators, the role of unpalatability as an antipredator mechanism in larval anurans and more specifically, Lithobates catesbeianus (American Bullfrog) larvae remains contentious. There are three major problems associated with the majority of the studies done to date: (1) failure to incorporate the existence of a range of relative preferences or palatability, (2) failure to effectively control for predator hunger levels, and (3) failure to consider confounding variables such as prey behavior and prey appearance. We sought to alleviate these problems by first training Lepomis gibbosus (Pumpkinseed Sunfish) to consume a standardized food ration for 1 wk and then spiking that food ration the following week with only the skin of three different larval anurans that have been hypothesized to range in palatability (namely, L. catesbeianus, L. clamitans [Green Frog], and L. sylvaticus [Wood Frog]). The results of this experiment revealed that a range of palatability does in fact exist, with L. catesbeianus being least palatable, L. clamitans being somewhat unpalatable, and L. sylvaticus being highly palatable. This study was the first to show evidence, devoid of any confounding variables, that L. catesbeianus and, to a lesser extent, L. clamitans tadpoles are unpalatable to sunfish predators.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".