Dominant convict cichlids (Amatitlania nigrofasciata) grow faster than subordinates when fed an equal ration
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous studies indicate that dominant fish grow faster than subordinate fish when fed equal rations. It is unclear, however, whether this growth differential is caused by intrinsic differences related to their propensity to become dominant, or by the extrinsic effect of the social stress experienced by subordinates. We first tested whether dominant convict cichlids ( Amatitlania nigrofasciata ) grew faster than subordinates when fed an equal amount of food. Second, we tested whether the growth advantage of dominants occurred when only visual interactions were allowed between pairs of fish. Third, we randomly assigned social status to the fish to rule out the possibility that intrinsic differences between fish were responsible for both the establishment of dominance and the growth differences. In three separate experiments, dominant fish grew faster than size-matched subordinate convict cichlids, but the growth advantage of dominants was higher when there were direct interactions between fish compared to only visual interactions. Our results provide strong support for the hypothesis that the slower growth rate of subordinate fish was due to the physiological costs of stress.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it