MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2806428105 · doi:10.1093/cz/zoy047

Reviewing guppy color vision: integrating the molecular and physiological variation in visual tuning of a classic system for sensory drive

2018· article· en· W2806428105 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Zoology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Eye Institute
KeywordsGuppyVariation (astronomy)PreferenceSensory systemColor visionPopulationBiologyCommunicationArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyPsychologyComputer scienceMathematicsSociologyStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sensory drive predicts coevolution of mate choice signals with the sensory systems detecting those signals. Guppies are a classic model for sensory drive as mate preferences based on coloration differ across individuals and populations. A large body of work has identified variation in color vision, yet we lack a direct tie between how such variation in color vision influences variation in color preference. Here we bring together studies that have investigated guppy vision over the past 40 years to: (1) highlight our current understanding of where variation occurs in the guppy color vision pathway and (2) suggest future avenues of research into sources of visual system variation that could influence guppy color preference. This will allow researchers to design careful studies that couple measures of color preference with measures of visual system variation from the same individual or population. Such studies will finally provide important answers as to what sets the direction and speed of mate preference evolution via sensory drive.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.264 · 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