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
Zebrafish have been gaining increasing popularity in behavioral neuroscience. However, the number of behavioral test paradigms specifically designed for zebrafish, and in general the amount of information available on the behavior of this species, is relatively small when compared with classical laboratory model organisms such as the mouse, the rat, and the fruit fly. A particularly typical behavioral feature of zebrafish is shoaling, i.e., group formation. Given the importance of social behavior in our own species and the fact that zebrafish possess several characteristics similar to those of other vertebrates, including humans, at many levels of biological organization (e.g., neuroanatomy, neurochemistry, biochemical processes, and amino acid sequence of proteins or nucleotide sequence of genes), the zebrafish is expected to be an excellent tool not only for basic research but perhaps also for translational research. Briefly, we propose that once social behavior of the zebrafish is better characterized and once appropriate behavioral methods have been developed, this species can be utilized for the analysis of the mechanisms of social behavior of other vertebrates including our own. In this review, we discuss general principles of shoaling and highlight what we know and what we do not know about this behavior as it pertains to zebrafish.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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