The influence of web silk decorations on fleeing behaviour of Florida orb weaver spiders, <i>Argiope florida</i> (Aranaeidae)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spider web silk decorations may (i) act to attract prey, (ii) be decoys for predators, and (iii) make the web visible to prevent larger animals from destroying them. To disentangle the last two hypotheses, we examined the fleeing response and flight initiation distance (FID) of the Florida orb weaver spider (Argiope florida Chamberlin and Ivie, 1944). Spiders were approached in one of two manners: (1) a “predatory” one mimicking a bird and (2) a “looming” approach mimicking the approach of a large animal. We predicted that if silk decorations had an antipredator function, then the extent of silk decoration would influence whether spiders fled from the predatory approach. However, if the function was primarily a signal to large animals, then all spiders would flee the looming approach, but FID would be influenced by the extent of silk decoration. We found no influence of silk decorations on fleeing behaviour and FID of spiders. Spider fleeing behaviour was, however, influenced by height of the web from the ground. The effects of web height might reflect an adaptive response to a more exposed position and therefore could support either of the two hypotheses tested; however, we have no evidence supporting the role of silk decorations on antipredator responses.
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 | 0.000 | 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".