Species and population differences in social recognition between fishes: a role for ecology?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social organization of animals is reliant on recognition. However, the precision and specificity with which an individual animal recognizes another in a social context, and the sensory mechanisms that it employs, may vary both within and between species. Differences in the ecology and in the mating systems of species may drive the evolution of different recognition abilities, ranging from individual-specific recognition to more general forms of recognition. We examined social recognition in two important model species in behavioral ecology, the guppy (Poecilia reticulata) and the three-spined stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus). We found that guppies were capable of individual recognition of conspecifics, as well as being able to differentiate between groups of conspecific based on cues relating to resource use and habitat use. By contrast, sticklebacks showed no ability to recognize individuals in a social context after prior interactions. Nonetheless, two out of three populations of sticklebacks demonstrated general recognition abilities, based on cues relating to resource use. We discuss the potential relationship between social recognition mechanisms and the ecological and life-history parameters of species and populations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".