MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reproductive female round gobies (Neogobius melanostomus) are attracted to visual male models at a nest rather than to olfactory stimuli in urine of reproductive males

2010· article· en· W2097822357 on OpenAlexaff
Stan Yavno, Lynda D. Corkum

Bibliographic record

VenueBehaviour · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRound gobyNeogobiusBiologyNest (protein structural motif)OlfactionReproductive successGobyZoologyReproductive behaviorEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>FisheryPredationPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fish are known to communicate in many ways and commonly use olfactory and visual signals. When round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) males become reproductive, they change from mottled grey to black and release sex steroids in their urine. In this study, we conducted a laboratory experiment to determine if reproductive female round gobies were attracted to a combination of olfactory (urine) and visual (silicone models) stimuli, representing reproductive and non-reproductive male round gobies. Females spent significantly more time at a nest with a black reproductive male model compared with a mottled non-reproductive male model. Neither urine type nor the interaction between model type and urine affected the time spent by reproductive females at a nest. Knowledge of the reproductive habits of the round goby may enable researchers to develop a method of species control for this invasive fish by manipulating its breeding habits.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehaviourSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207