MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165852230 · doi:10.1242/jeb.034751

Electric signals and species recognition in the wave-type gymnotiform fish<i>Apteronotus leptorhynchus</i>

2009· article· en· W2165852230 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Fugère, Rüdiger Krahe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersPontificia Universidad Católica del EcuadorUniversidad Nacional Mayor de San MarcosFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesMcGill UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsElectric fishWaveformStimulus (psychology)BiologyAnimal communicationElectroreceptionAcousticsBioacousticsForagingCommunicationFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyPhysicsComputer scienceTelecommunicationsPsychologyFisheryCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gymnotiformes are South American weakly electric fish that produce weak electric organ discharges (EOD) for orientation, foraging and communication purposes. It has been shown that EOD properties vary widely across species and could thus be used as species recognition signals. We measured and quantified the electric signals of various species using a landmark-based approach. Using discriminant function analysis to verify whether these signals are species specific based on different signal parameters, we found that the EOD waveform is a more specific cue than EOD frequency, which shows large overlap across species. Using Apteronotus leptorhynchus as a focal species, we then performed a series of playback experiments using stimuli of different species (varying in frequency, waveform, or both). In an experiment with restrained fish, we found, in contrast to what we predicted, that the choice of stimulus waveform did not affect the production of communication signals. In an experiment with free-swimming fish, the animals spent more time near the playback electrodes and produced more communication signals when the stimuli were within their conspecific frequency range. Waveform again had no measurable effect. The production of communication signals correlated with the frequency difference between the stimulus and the fish's own EOD, but approach behavior did not.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations54
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental BiologySame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207