Personality and the retention of neophobic predator avoidance in wild caught Trinidadian guppies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Neophobic predator avoidance allows prey to reduce the risk of predation but is costly in terms of reduced foraging or courtship opportunities if the novel cues do not represent an actual threat. Consequently, neophobic responses to novel cues should wane with repeated exposures in the absence of an actual threat. We tested the prediction that individual personality traits shape the retention of neophobic predator avoidance in wild-caught guppies. Using extinction trials, we demonstrate that personality (measured as latency to escape or approach a novel object) did not influence the initial response of wild-caught Trinidadian guppies to a novel odour; bolder and shyer guppies both exhibited similarly strong avoidance responses. However, after several exposures, shyer guppies maintain an avoidance response, and bolder guppies no longer respond. Our results highlight the complex nature of the antipredator algorithm of prey, whereby past experience, acute risk, and individual tactics shape neophobic predator avoidance patterns.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".