MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146608206 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2000.1039

Sensory compensation and the detection of predators: the interaction between chemical and visual information

2000· article· en· W2146608206 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

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationALARMSensory systemSensory cueCLARITYAffect (linguistics)EcologyBiologyCognitive psychologyCommunicationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent evidence suggests that environmental conditions may affect whether fishes do or do not respond to the presence of chemical alarm cues in water. We present a simple model which suggests that the combination of risk of predation and information from other sources will determine when fishes should react to these chemical cues. We tested this model with a laboratory experiment which manipulated the risk of predation by altering the animals (hungry or well fed), or their environment (presence or absence of cover). We also altered the availability of visual information by manipulating the water clarity. Consistent with our model, fishes were most likely to react to chemical alarm cues in the absence of visual information and when the perceived risk of predation was high. The manipulation of either parameter was able to extinguish this response.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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