MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982993665 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0381

Daytime avoidance of chemosensory alarm cues by adult sea lamprey (<i>Petromyzon marinus</i>)

2014· article· en· W1982993665 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
R. T. Di Rocco, Cowan F. Belanger, I. Imre, G. E. Brown, Nicholas S. Johnson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityAlgoma University
FundersU.S. Geological SurveyAlgoma University
KeywordsPetromyzonLampreyALARMPredationBiologyAvoidance responseZoologyEcologyNeuroscienceFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sea lamprey (Petromyzon marinus) avoid damage-released and predator chemosensory cues at night, but their response to these cues during the day is unknown. Here, we explored (i) whether sea lamprey avoid these cues during the day and (ii) the effect of water temperature on the avoidance of chemosensory alarm cues in two diurnal laboratory experiments. We hypothesized that daytime activity would be temperature-dependent and that only sea lamprey vulnerable to predation (i.e., not hiding) would behaviourally respond to chemosensory alarm cues. Ten groups of ten sea lamprey were exposed to one of a variety of potential chemosensory cues. The experiments were conducted over a range of temperatures to quantify the effect of temperature on avoidance behaviour. Consistent with our hypothesis, a higher proportion of animals were active during daytime as water temperature increased. Moving sea lamprey showed an avoidance response to 2-phenylethylamine (a compound found in mammalian urine) and human saliva once water temperatures had risen to mean (±SD) = 13.7 (±1.4) °C. Resting and hiding sea lamprey did not show an avoidance response to any of the experimental stimuli.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207