The role of latent inhibition in acquired predator recognition by fathead minnows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability of prey animals to recognize and respond to potential predators has important survival consequences. In many predator–prey systems, prey need to learn which species are potential predators. Consequently, selection should favour efficient learning mechanisms. For aquatic organisms, a very effective way to learn to identify potential predators is by associating cues of injured conspecifics with cues of an unknown predator. To our knowledge, no studies of fishes have failed to show successful acquisition of predator recognition using this learning method. The goal of our study was to begin to address the limits of this learning paradigm. Specifically, we tested whether pre-exposure to a novel predator would prevent the associative learning from occurring. In the first treatment, we pre-exposed minnows to distilled water for 1 h on 5 consecutive days and then conditioned them with conspecific skin extract paired with charr odour. In the second treatment, minnows were pre-exposed to charr odour and conditioned with conspecific skin extract paired with charr odour. In the last treatment, minnows were pre-exposed to charr odour but “conditioned” with distilled water paired with charr odour. When tested for recognition of the charr odour alone, only the fish that were not pre-exposed to charr odour showed responses to the predators. We conclude that latent inhibition affects the efficiency of associative learning of the predator.
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) | 0.000 | 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".