The conditional benefits of cannibalism for wood frog tadpoles (Lithobates sylvaticus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wood frog tadpoles have an incredible ability to rapidly adapt to changing conditions, and when population densities become high tadpoles often become cannibalistic. Cannibalism potentially represents an ideal diet by composition, and should be beneficial to the growth and development of cannibalistic individuals. To test the relative efficacy of cannibalism to growth and development we conducted multiple feeding experiments. Results indicate that cannibalism represents a better alternative to starvation and provides some benefit to development and survival of tadpoles over low quality diets. However, cannibalism can be detrimental to tadpole growth and/or development relative to diets of similar protein content. Additionally, tadpoles raised individually appear to initially avoid consuming the cannibalistic diet, and may continue to do so until they face the risk of starvation. Conversely, when tadpoles were raised in groups providing them with competition, they immediately fed upon the cannibal diet. Our results suggest that competition, rather than dietary quality is likely the driving force behind cannibalistic behaviour unless tadpoles otherwise face the risk of starvation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".