Are You What You Eat? How Protein and Carbohydrate Availability during Development Influence Cricket Cognition and other Fitness Conferring Traits in Adulthood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The conditions experienced during development may influence adult cognition and fitness, especially when conditions are stressful.To test the developmental stress hypothesis, I manipulated Texas field crickets (Gryllus texensis) juvenile diet and observed its effects on cognition (Chapter 1) and other fitness-related traits; I also examined whether diet influenced trade-offs between traits (Chapter 2).Individuals improved their cognition scores with training, but not during the test trial, suggesting developmental diets were stressful, hindering spatial cognition.Female fecundity was greatest in larger females that grew quickly.Males that developed quickly and performed well cognitively had a high probability of adopting a caller strategy; these males also exhibited high calling effort, suggesting high overall condition.For all others, adopting a caller strategy and exhibiting high calling effort only occurred with trade-offs, either via slower development, poorer performance in the cognitive task, or both.Diet did not predict cognitive and reproductive trade-offs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".