Behaviour is not Reliably Inferred from End‐Product Structure in Caddisflies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many animals engage in elaborate behavioural sequences in order to build structures. The ‘end‐products’ (e.g., nests of birds, cases of caddisflies) of these behaviours have occasionally been used either to infer details of building behaviour or to infer that structures similar in appearance are constructed by similar behavioural sequences. However, behavioural information can be extrapolated from end‐products only if there is congruence between the end‐product structure and the animal's movements. Case building behaviour was studied in caddisflies (Trichoptera) to examine the relationship between end‐products and behaviour. We found examples of taxa that built similar structures using different behavioural patterns, and taxa that built different structures using similar behaviours, regardless of whether these taxa were closely or distantly related. These findings question the reliability of behavioural inferences based solely on details of their associated end‐products and suggest that end‐product structure should be removed from the definition of animal behaviour.
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 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) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".