MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2600166246 · doi:10.1163/1568539x-00003426

Alarm cue specificity and response ontogeny in juvenile rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss)

2017· article· en· W2600166246 on OpenAlexafffund
Marianna E. Horn, Douglas P. Chivers

Bibliographic record

VenueBehaviour · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsRainbow troutJuvenilePredationBiologyALARMTroutOntogenyPredatorZoologySensory cueFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyCommunicationPsychologyFisheryNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many aquatic prey animals release chemical cues upon being captured by a predator. These chemical cues, referred to as alarm cues, may act to warn nearby individuals of danger. For the cues to be useful, fish must be able to discern if they are indicative of a real threat; cues from conspecifics in different age groups may be irrelevant due to size- and habitat-related shifts in predation risk. We test the response of newly-hatched rainbow trout,Oncorhynchus mykiss, to three concentrations of alarm cues from conspecifics from two age groups: newly-hatched versus six-month-old juveniles. Newly-hatched trout demonstrated a significant fright response to all three concentrations of alarm cues, but showed no difference in strength of response based on either concentration or age of the cue donor. We propose that the newly-hatched trout did not respond differently because of the high risk of predation that they face during this life stage.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBehaviourSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207