MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rearing Environment Affects the Brain Size of Guppies: Lab‐Reared Guppies have Smaller Brains than Wild‐Caught Guppies

2009· article· en· W2166792597 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of TorontoGovernment of OntarioNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBiologyBrain sizeInbreeding depressionGuppyZoologyPoeciliaEcologyInbreedingFish <Actinopterygii>PopulationDemographyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Animals bred for captivity often have smaller brains and behave differently than their wild counterparts. These differences in brain size have been attributed to genetic changes resulting from, for example, inbreeding depression and pleiotropic effects of artificial selection for traits such as docility. A critical question, though, is whether these differences in brain size are due to plastic responses to the environment, not just genetic changes. We observed a large reduction in brain size in first generation, lab‐reared female guppies compared with wild‐caught ones (19% smaller telencephalon, 17% smaller optic tectum). We then reared first‐generation, lab‐born guppies in environments varying in spatial complexity and size in an attempt to isolate factors that might increase brain size and change temperament, but no significant differences in phenotype were observed. The results of these experiments show that, although the environmental factors responsible for the effect have not been found, even first generation lab‐reared individuals can have smaller brains than wild individuals.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.217 · 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