Body size and shoaling in fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shoaling behaviour is generally described as a trade‐off between the anti‐predator benefits of living in groups and the costs of increased foraging competition. An individual's fitness varies as a function of shoal size and shoal composition, and this relationship is potentially body length dependent. As teleost fishes show indeterminate growth, many populations exhibit a broad range of individual body lengths. The latter is used as a criterion in active choice of shoaling companions, and shoals are often size‐assorted. This reduces predation risk through minimizing phenotypic oddity, and may reduce competition between size‐classes. There is some evidence for a positive relationship between shoal size and the body length of shoal members, although it remains unclear whether this is a result of active shoal‐size choice or a by‐product of the body length distribution of the population. Shoal membership is highly dynamic and individuals may maximize their fitness by switching frequently between groups of varying size and composition in response to changes in their physiological stage and the external environment. Fish shoals provide an excellent opportunity to investigate the functions and mechanisms of group living, and future studies should aim to take an integrated view of individual behaviours, group size and phenotypic composition when investigating group choice decisions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".