MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Consistency in Context‐specific Measures of Shyness and Boldness in Rainbow Trout, <i>Oncorhynchus mykiss</i>

2005· article· en· W2162535858 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander D. M. Wilson, E.D. Stevens

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoldnessRainbow troutShynessContext (archaeology)TroutForagingPsychologyEcologyFisherySocial psychologyBiologyPersonalityFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Shyness and boldness has been considered a fundamental axis of human behavioural variation. At the extreme ends of this behavioural continuum subjects vary from being bold and assertive to shy and timid. Analogous patterns of individual variation have been noted in a number of species including fish. There has been debate on the nature of this continuum as to whether it depends on context. That is, whether it is domain‐general (as in humans), or context‐specific. The purpose of our study was to test if shyness and boldness depends on context in rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss and to this end we estimated boldness in five different situations. Our data provide evidence of a shy–bold behavioural syndrome in rainbow trout. Bold trout tended to be bold in four situations when the context was similar (when the context concerned foraging). However, in a different context, exploring a swim flume, the ranking was entirely different. We suggest that shyness and boldness depends on context in rainbow trout.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.209 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207