A Comparison of Measures of Boldness and Their Relationships to Survival in Young Fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Boldness is the propensity of an animal to engage in risky behavior. Many variations of novel-object or novel-environment tests have been used to quantify the boldness of animals, although the relationship between test outcomes has rarely been investigated. Furthermore, the relationship of outcomes to any ecological aspect of fitness is generally assumed, rather than measured directly. Our study is the first to compare how the outcomes of the same test of boldness differ among observers and how different tests of boldness relate to the survival of individuals in the field. Newly-metamorphosed lemon damselfish, Pomacentrus moluccensis, were placed onto replicate patches of natural habitat. Individual behavior was quantified using four tests (composed of a total of 12 different measures of behavior): latency to enter a novel environment, activity in a novel environment, and reactions to threatening and benign novel objects. After behavior was quantified, survival was monitored for two days during which time fish were exposed to natural predators. Variation among observers was low for most of the 12 measures, except distance moved and the threat test (reaction to probe thrust), which displayed unacceptable amounts of inter-observer variation. Overall, the results of the behavioral tests suggested that novel environment and novel object tests quantified similar behaviors, yet these behavioral measures were not interchangeable. Multiple measures of behavior within the context of novel environment or object tests were the most robust way to assess boldness and these measures have a complex relationship with survivorship of young fish in the field. Body size and distance ventured from shelter were the only variables that had a direct and positive relationship with survival.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".