Diminished foraging performance of a mutant zebrafish with reduced population of ultraviolet cones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ultraviolet (UV) cones are photoreceptors that sense light in the range 300-450 nm and are found in the retinas of non-mammalian vertebrates and small mammals. Despite their widespread presence across taxa, the functions that these cones exert in the lives of animals remain largely unknown. In this study, I used the zebrafish lor (lots of rods) mutant, characterized by a diminished UV cone population compared to that of wild-type zebrafish, to test whether its foraging performance differed from that of the wild-type (control). The mean location distance and angle (variables that are reliable indicators of foraging performance) at which control fish detected zooplankton prey were, on average, 24 and 90% greater than corresponding measures for lor fish. Such inferior foraging performance of the mutant could be explained by reduced contrast perception of the prey, resulting from the diminished population of UV cones and associated sensitivity. Thus, UV cones enhance the foraging performance of zebrafish, a crucial ecological function that may explain why small zooplanktivorous fishes retain UV cones throughout their lives.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".