Exposure to predation risk reduces lateralization in fathead minnows.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lateralization of cognitive functions impacts many behaviours related to fitness and, in most species, varies greatly among individuals. Laboratory and field studies have suggested that within-species variation in lateralization is partly due to phenotypic plasticity. For example, in fish, prey that have experienced predation risk during early ontogeny develop highly lateralized phenotypes, and this lateralization often favours prey in evading predators. In contexts other than predation, plasticity of lateralization has also been reported for adult fish. Therefore, we asked whether adult fathead minnows, Pimephales promelas, exposed to high predation risk would also show plasticity linked to increase lateralization. We exposed minnows to conspecific alarm cues for up to 8 days to simulate predation risk and tested their lateralization with a standard detour test. The treatment affected lateralization but in an unexpected direction: Individuals exposed to high predation risk showed lower lateralization scores compared to control fish. In addition, fish within groups exposed to risk reduced the variability in their directionality of lateralization; that is, they showed a similar turning preference in the detour task. Our study suggests that lateralization can vary in response to predation risk in adult fish. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".