Physiological effects of dominance hierarchies: laboratory artefacts or natural phenomena?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of fish behaviour have demonstrated the existence of social interactions that result in dominance hierarchies. In environments in which resources, such as food, shelter and mates, are limited, social competition results in some fish becoming dominant and occupying the most profitable positions. This behaviour has been observed in natural environments and also in many laboratory‐based experiments. When two fish have been confined in a small tank, one of them usually has exhibited behaviour that suggests it is dominant over the other submissive animal. Physiological consequences of social interaction can be seen in both dominants and subordinates but are more extreme in the subordinate. However, this scenario is without doubt an artificial situation. Fewer experiments have been conducted using laboratory experiments that are more socially and physically complex than those experienced by dyads in tanks. In simple fluvial tanks, through which water is recirculated, the physiological responses of fish to social competition have generally been qualitatively similar to those recorded among dyads. However, when environmental disturbances, complex resource distributions, increase in water flushing, presence of predators and competing species of fish have been included in experimen‐tal designs, there have been fewer, diminished or no physiological dierences between dominant and subordinate fish. There have been very few studies of physiology in relation to dominance in natural habitats, and those that have been conducted suggest that under some circumstances hierarchies may cause less intense physiological responses than have been suggested based on results of laboratory studies in simple environments. Possible reasons for these variations are discussed. The need is identified for a well structured experimental approach to the investi‐gation of the causes and consequences of hierarchies if the ecology of wild fish is to be modelled eectively based on physiological processes. It is also suggested that the further development and application of techniques for monitoring physiologies of fish in the wild is important.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".