Within‐group variation in the willingness to risk exposure to a predator: the influence of species and size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The costs and benefits associated with feeding in the vicinity of a predator should vary within and among species, depending on an individual's vulnerability to a predator. In this paper, we investigate how willingness to risk exposure to a predator in order to gain access to food is expressed within groups of fish. We provided groups of six individually marked brook sticklebacks ( Culea inconstans ) and fathead minnows ( Pimephales promelas ) with the opportunity to feed in safety, or in the presence of a single predator (walleye, Stizostedion vitreum ). Sticklebacks and fathead minnows are commonly found in the same locations at the same time, but sticklebacks also possess armour and spines that provide defence against some predators. Despite this morphological variation, patterns of individual behaviour were consistent between species. While feeding close to the predator, there was a positive relation between the size of the individual and the proportion of food consumed. No relation existed on the side farthest from the predator. These data suggest that fish may risk exposure to predators to exploit size‐related differences in vulnerability to gain a competitive advantage for access to food.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".