Feeding performance in the Western Ribbon Snake (<i>Thamnophis proximus</i>): ontogeny and the effects of prey type and size
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been suggested that juveniles have exaggerated morphologies or improved performance to compensate for the disadvantages of being small. As gape-limited predators, juvenile snakes are at a particular disadvantage in terms of prey availability, capture, and ingestion. Prey preference often changes with snake size yet previous studies generally compare only one prey type or relative prey size among age classes. Using Western Ribbon Snakes ( Thamnophis proximus (Say in James, 1823)), I investigated the ontogeny of head dimensions and feeding performance on frogs and fish using a range of relative prey sizes. Comparison among snake sizes indicated that smaller individuals had larger relative head sizes than larger conspecifics; however, larger individuals had larger heads. Initial bite position differed between juveniles and adults fed fish but not frogs. Both frogs and fish were generally consumed headfirst by adults and juveniles. Head length did not influence feeding performance in terms of time or pterygoid protractions for snakes fed either fish or frogs. In general, this study suggests that allometry of trophic morphology does not improve feeding performance.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".