Underwater sound emission as part of an antipredator mechanism in <i><scp>C</scp>eratophrys cranwelli</i> tadpoles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We report the emission of underwater sounds in the tadpoles of a second member of the family Ceratophryidae, Ceratophrys cranwelli. These tadpoles produce a short metallic‐like sound, which consists of short trains of pulses at Gosner stages 25, 28, and 37. Experiment I was designed to record underwater sounds and their characteristics. Experiment II was designed to test: (i) if at higher densities (total number of tadpoles/L) but fixed predator–prey proportions C. cranwelli larvae are cannibalistic, (ii) if cannibalism increases at higher proportions of predators at a fixed density, and (iii) if tadpoles display a mechanism of intraspecific recognition that may diminish the frequency of cannibalism. Each treatment combines larvae of C. cranwelli (predator) with those of Rhinella arenarum (prey). The number of live and dead individuals was recorded during 72 h, and the following variables were calculated: time to eat the first and second prey, time without eating, time to eat a congener, and number of events of cannibalism. The results indicate that relative predator–prey availability affects the frequency of predation between conspecifics. We consider that an antipredator mechanism exists in C. cranwelli tadpoles and that the underwater sound is part of it.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".