Discrimination of family‐specific odours by juvenile coho salmon: roles of learning and odour concentration*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free‐swimming coho salmon fry Oncorhynchus kisutch of some families showed preference (relative to the behaviour of naïve sibs) for the odours of similarly aged non‐sibs to whom they had been exposed during the post‐hatch (alevin) stage and the early free‐swimming (fry) stage, but not the embryo (egg) stage, indicating that odour‐learning had occurred during the later developmental periods. Recognition (i.e. preference) of sib‐ pecific odours was evident after a month, and in one case 5 months, of separation from those odours. Thus, young salmon incubating in their gravel nests in streams appear to have the capacity to learn the chemical characteristics of conspecifics and retain this memory for at least several months without reinforcement. However, in addition to the general attractiveness of sibs and familiar non‐sibs over unfamiliar non‐sibs, some non‐sibs were consistently more attractive than others. Preference between two different non‐sib odours could be reversed by changing their relative concentrations, indicating that relative attractiveness is a function of both familiarity and odour concentration. Therefore, although juvenile coho salmon learn, remember, and are subsequently attracted by sib‐specific odours in early life, familiar odours are not always preferred over unfamiliar conspecific odours. Preference in dyadic assays is therefore an insensitive measure of recognition.
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".