MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3146035445 · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2021.03.005

Client fish traits underlying variation in service quality in a marine cleaning mutualism

2021· article· en· W3146035445 on OpenAlexaff
Dominique G. Roche, Maïwenn Jornod, Véronique Douet, Alexandra S. Grutter, Redouan Bshary

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Behaviour · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsMutualism (biology)CheatingCoral reef fishTemptationEcologySocial psychologyBiologyPsychologyCoral reef

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Game-theoretical models help us understand how and when cooperation can evolve and persist. However, current models fall short of explaining the striking amount of variation in cooperation levels that we observe in nature, even within a system. For example, an animal's ability to choose partners with which to interact can explain the maintenance of cooperative interactions, but not variation in cooperation levels among individuals with similar partner choice options. Here, we explored how partner choice options and other key partner traits predict the quality of the service provided by cleaner fish, Labroides dimidiatus (the ‘chosen’ partner) to their client reef fishes (the ‘choosy’ partner). In this marine cleaning mutualism, cleaner fish sometimes cheat and eat mucus from their clients rather than cooperate by removing ectoparasites. We examined 13 client fish species and assessed the influence of nine variables on cooperation levels by cleaner fish (i.e. the frequency of cheating events) using information theory. Variables characterizing clients and the interactions themselves were used as proxies for a client's nutritional value, partner choice options, ability to punish a cheating partner and a cleaner's temptation to cheat its client (some of these traits were characterized by more than one variable). We found that six of the nine variables were equally important in explaining variation in client jolts: the duration of an interaction, and traits of client species including their body size (a proxy for the quality of a food patch), gnathiid ectoparasite load (nutritional value), partner choice options, agility (ability to control an interaction via avoidance or termination) and mucus characteristics (a measure of the cleaners' temptation to cheat). These findings suggest that numerous factors influence variation in cooperation levels, showing a parallel with sexual selection theory, where female mate choice does not depend on a single factor such as the operational sex ratio, but also on other key variables including a male's quality relative to other males, and a female's ability to avoid male coercion.

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 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 score0.511
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal BehaviourSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207