MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138331982 · doi:10.1163/1568539x-00003026

Intraspecific kleptoparasitism and counter-tactics in the archerfish (Toxotes chatareus)

2012· article· en· W2138331982 on OpenAlex

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

VenueBehaviour · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKleptoparasitismIntraspecific competitionPredationForagingBiologyZoologyFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mechanics of the archerfish’s remarkable ability to spit down aerial prey is well studied. Relatively unknown, however, are the social consequences of this hunting method. To explore how physical factors and behavioural choices affect the use and success of intraspecific kleptoparasitism in socially foraging archerfish, 10 tagged, juvenile archerfish (Toxotes chatareus) were presented in groups of 3, 5, and 7 with single crickets of 3 sizes overhanging the water by either 15 or 30 cm. Video review revealed all spits, jumps, attempted thefts, and consumptions. Kleptoparasitism attempts were common, resulting in a 43.6% loss rate to the fish that successfully brought down the prey. Group size affected the probability of kleptoparasitism asymptotically: loss rate increased as group size increased from 3 to 5 members, but with no further increase at 7 members. As observed with other kleptoparasitic species, the rate and success of kleptoparasitism increased with both prey size and prey height (analogous to handling time). Several counter-kleptoparasitism behaviours were observed, including jumping to grab prey directly, aggression, spitting technique, and positioning.

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)0.000
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.213 · 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