Behavioral Responses of Crayfish to a Reflective Environment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the effects of visual cues provided by a reflective environment on spontaneous behavior exhibited by crayfish (Procambarus clarkii) in an empty aquarium. The predominant components of spontaneous behavior were determined by observing the activity of solitary adult crayfish for 20 minutes in a glass aquarium containing fresh water and no objects. Five distinct behaviors were observed: rearing up (climbing on the wall), turning, cornering (facing the corner for |$5\, {\text{s}}$| or longer), backward walking, and crossing (crossing the midline of the aquarium). The frequencies of rearing up, cornering, and turning decreased when reflection from the glass wall was blocked with black cardboard or non-reflective plastic. In a tank containing mirrors on one side and non-reflective plastic on the other, crayfish cornered, reared up, and turned more in front of the mirrors. To examine whether or not such responses depend on socialization, crayfish were housed for two weeks either in same-sex pairs (socialized) or separately (isolated), and subsequently their behaviors were compared in a tank with mirrors on one side and non-reflective plastic on the other. Crayfish that had been housed in isolation showed no difference in rearing up, turning, cornering, or backward walking between the mirror and non-mirrored portions of the tank. Crayfish housed in pairs showed significantly more of all five behaviors in front of the mirrors than in the non-mirrored portions of the tank, and they spent significantly more time in front of the mirrors than in the non-mirrored part of the tank. On the other hand, isolated crayfish seemed to avoid the mirrored side. The results demonstrate that crayfish are sensitive to reflection, even the partial reflection present in an ordinary glass tank, and that responses of crayfish to a reflective environment depend on prior socialization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".