Differential use of visual and chemical cues in predator recognition and threat-sensitive predator-avoidance responses by larval newts (<i>Notophthalmus viridescens</i>)
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
For prey under the threat of predation, the ability to distinguish between different levels of danger can have important fitness consequences. Larval central newts, Notophthalmus viridescens louisianensis, distinguished between predatory (Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum larvae) and nonpredatory (Hyla chrysoscelis/versicolor complex tadpoles) heterospecifics, but only when chemical cues were available. When only visual cues were present, larvae responded to both predatory and nonpredatory stimuli by reducing activity (fright response), but did not distinguish between the two types. Fine-scale discrimination of visual stimuli may have failed to develop because larval newts typically live in aquatic habitats in which chemical cues may be more reliable than visual cues, owing to large amounts of sediments and vegetation or possibly to myopia. Late-stage newt larvae that were approaching metamorphosis were unpalatable to A. t. tigrinum, and histological examination of the skin revealed that granular (poison) glands were present in the skin of late-stage but not early-stage larvae. Late-stage larvae did not distinguish between chemical stimuli from predators and nonpredators, which suggests that fright responses of larval newts are plastic and can be modified according to the level of perceived threat.
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