Differential responses of male and female red swordtails to chemical alarm cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male and female red swordtails Xiphophorus helleri exposed in the laboratory to swordtail skin extract, fathead minnow Pimephales promelas skin extract and distilled water, significantly decreased activity in response to conspecific skin extract compared to minnow skin extract or distilled water. Moreover, males and females responded differentially to conspecific skin extract. Males tended to occupy the top compartment of the tank, whereas females tended to occupy the bottom compartment and seek shelter more. In a second experiment swordtails reduced activity significantly more in response to swordtail skin extract compared to closely related guppy Poecilia reticulata skin extract, minnow skin extract or distilled water. Swordtails also reduced activity significantly more to guppy skin extract compared to minnow skin and distilled water. However, males and females did not respond differentially to guppy skin extract. This suggests that chemical alarm cues are partially conserved within the Poeciliidae, but the level of response is of lower intensity to heterospecific skin extracts.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".