Duration of socialization influences responses to a mirror: responses of dominant and subordinate crayfish diverge with time of pairing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflective surfaces have been shown previously to modify behaviour in socialized crayfish. Socializing crayfish by pairing them for two weeks established a hierarchy with one dominant and one subordinate crayfish per pair. Dominant crayfish exhibited specific behaviours, such as cornering, turning and crossing, more frequently in a reflective environment than in a non-reflective environment. After 2 weeks of pairing, subordinate crayfish did not respond in this manner but, instead, performed more reverse walking in a reflective environment. The present study investigated how the length of social pairing affects the response to mirrors. Crayfish from a communal tank were paired for 30 min or for 3 days, and their activity was videotaped for 20 min in a test aquarium lined with mirrors on one half and a non-reflective matte lining on the other half. Crayfish housed in the communal tank were used as a comparison group. After 30 min of pairing, dominant and subordinate crayfish responded similarly to the reflection, showing essentially the same pattern for seven of nine behaviours examined. After 3 days of pairing, dominant crayfish continued to respond to the reflection in essentially the same way, but subordinate crayfish behaved differently, showing differences in seven out of nine behaviours. Thus, the pattern of responses of dominant and subordinate crayfish to reflection diverged with time of pairing.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".