Strategic and tactical fighting decisions in cichlid fishes with divergent social systems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The costs and benefits of engaging in a contest will differ depending on the social situation of the individuals involved. Therefore, understanding contest behaviour can help to elucidate the trade-offs of living in differing social systems and shed light on the evolution of social behaviour. In the current study, we compared contest behaviour in two closely related species of Lamprologine cichlid fish. Neolamprologus pulcher and Telmatochromis temporalis are both pair-breeding cichlids, but N. pulcher are highly social, group-living fish, while T. temporalis display no grouping behaviour. To examine how competition varies by species, sex and familiarity, we staged same-sex conspecific contests over a shelter, a resource that is highly valued by both species, where contestants were either familiar or unfamiliar to one another. When we examined tactical and strategic components of these contests, we found that the highly social species had shorter contests and engaged in fewer costly aggressive acts than did the non-social species. Individuals of the highly social species were also more likely to resolve conflicts through the use of submissive displays, while individuals of the non-social species were more likely to flee from conflict. Familiarity increased the use of submissive displays in the highly social species but not in the less social species. Our findings suggest that conflict resolution behaviour and dominance hierarchy formation are fundamentally linked to the evolution of complex social systems.
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 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 it