Threat-sensitive predator avoidance by slimy sculpins: understanding the importance of visual versus chemical information
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
The supposition that prey animals assess and behave flexibly in response to different degrees of predation threat is known as the threat-sensitive predator avoidance hypothesis. We completed a series of field and laboratory experiments to examine whether slimy sculpins (Cottus cognatus) exhibit threat-sensitive predator avoidance when exposed to sympatric predatory brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis). In a field experiment we caged small and large trout in similar habitats and found that sculpins avoided areas containing trout that were large enough to pose a threat to them, but did not avoid areas containing trout that were small and hence not a threat. In a series of laboratory experiments we found that sculpins showed threat-sensitive predator avoidance when they could assess the predator visually. However, when only chemical cues from the predator were presented, sculpins responded to the predator regardless of its size. Chemical cues seem to function to warn the sculpin that the predator is in the vicinity, but visual cues are needed in order to accurately assess the risk posed by the predator.
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) | 0.000 | 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