Escalated aggression in interpopulation brook trout dyads: evidence for behavioural divergence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The "communication-failure" hypothesis states that individuals whose agonistic displays deviate from the population norm are selected against because of the greater likelihood of their becoming involved in escalated contests. A corollary of this hypothesis is that the level of aggression in dyadic (pairwise) contests over resources is predicted to be higher the greater the behavioural divergence between the two contestants. Display divergence between two contestants from different populations should exceed that in intrapopulation dyads, consequently this prediction can be tested by comparing levels of aggression in contests between interpopulation dyads with those in contests between intra population dyads. We carried out such a test using brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) from two isolated populations in eastern Newfoundland. In initial encounters, the nipping rate (a measure of aggressiveness) of individuals from one of these populations was significantly higher in interpopulation dyads than in intrapopulation dyads. These results are consistent with the communication-failure hypothesis, as well as with the view that behavioural assessment, using low-cost stereotypic displays, reduces the cost of interactions over resources for both contestants.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".