MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086904734 · doi:10.1560/ijee.53.2.173

Note: A Field Assessment of the Defensive Responses of Moths to an Auditory Stimulus

2007· article· en· W2086904734 on OpenAlex
Justin R. St. Juliana, Brock M. Fenton, Carmi Korine, Berry Pinshow, Michał S. Wojciechowski, Vasiliy D. Kravchenko

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIsrael Journal of Ecology and Evolution · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBat Biology and Ecology Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)AudiologyAuditory stimuliBiologyPsychologyNeuroscienceCommunicationCognitive psychologyMedicinePerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the responses of moths to an auditory stimulus in the field with respect to moth size, moth activity state (at rest or flying), whether it responded, and response type. Moths most commonly responded by changing flight direction. Flying moths responded significantly more often to the auditory stimulus than did resting moths; small- and medium-sized moths responded significantly more often than larger ones. We found no differences in use of response types between size classes. We suggest that these behavioral responses to the auditory stimulus are likely due to evolved induced responses to detection of predatory bats.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.111
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it