Alternative foraging tactics and risk taking in brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently emerged brook charr (Salvelinus fontinalis) foraging in still-water pools along the sides of streams tend to be sedentary, feeding from the lower portion of the water column (sitting and waiting), or active, feeding from the upper portion of the water column (active search). Individuals exhibiting intermediate behavior are observed less frequently. We assessed the perceptual, energetic, and locomotor bases of the individual differences in foraging tactics by testing whether an individual's activity while searching for prey in the field was linked to its willingness to take risks, resting metabolic rate (RMR), and swimming capacity. Proportion of time an individual spent moving during prey search was quantified in the field, the individual was captured, and willingness to take risks (field), resting oxygen consumption (lab), and locomotor ability (lab) were measured. Individuals that spent a lesser proportion of time moving in the field took longer to exit from a dark tube into an unfamiliar field environment, and delayed their exit times more in response to a novel object, than did individuals that spent a greater proportion of time moving in the field. Proportion of time spent moving in the field was unrelated to resting oxygen consumption and swimming capacity measured in the laboratory. Dispositions in foraging behavior and risk taking early in life could influence encounter rates with novel prey and habitats, which are important steps in the initial stages of resource polymorphisms.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".