Size-related performance variation in the wood frog (<i>Rana sylvatica</i>) tadpole tactile-stimulated startle response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I described the initial response of the Rana sylvatica LeConte, 1825 tadpole to predator contact, that is, the tactile-stimulated startle response (TSR). Because tadpole survival from predation increases with tadpole size and with exposure to chemical predator cues during development, I anticipated that TSR performance would vary accordingly among tadpoles. Startle responses were stimulated in a laboratory setting and filmed using high-speed video. This method allowed analysis of performance at fine spatial and temporal scales. Maximum acceleration performance increased with tadpole length, as did cumulative distance covered after the first 0.016 s of the response. In contrast, the cumulative distance covered during the initial instants of the response did not depend on tadpole size. Exposure to a predator cue (odor of the dragonfly naiad Anax junius (Drury, 1773)) during development had no effect on tadpole morphology. Predator-cue exposure negatively affected cumulative distance traveled after the first 0.072 s of the startle response. I concluded that size-dependent variation in performance of the TSR may partially explain differential survival of tadpoles, but there was no evidence that exposure to this predator cue increased TSR performance.
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) | 0.000 | 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".