MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4240429679 · doi:10.1139/z00-176

Prey preferences of<i>Phaeacius malayensis</i>, a spartaeine jumping spider (Araneae: Salticidae) from Singapore

2000· article· en· W4240429679 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daiqin Li

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational University of Singapore
KeywordsJumping spiderPredationBiologyForagingContext (archaeology)JumpingSpiderZoologyEcologyPhysiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Phaeacius malayensis (Salticidae: Spartaeinae) is an atypical jumping spider that routinely includes other jumping spiders in its diet. This paper presents the first detailed study of P. malayensis' prey preferences. Three basic types of tests of prey preference were used: different types of prey were provided on alternate days (alternate-day tests), two types of prey were provided simultaneously (simultaneous-presentation tests), and an alternative prey type was provided while the predator was already feeding (alternative-prey tests). In alternate-day and simultaneous-presentation testing, but not in alternative-prey testing, (i) P. malayensis preferred spiders (salticids and hunting spiders) to insects; (ii) P. malayensis preferred salticids to hunting spiders; (iii) these preferences were not exhibited in some paired choices when the background was nonmatching, indicating that visual concealment is important with respect to some, but not all, prey; (iv) P. malayensis' prey preferences were not affected by a prior 14-day period without food; (v) after 21 days of fasting, P. malayensis took different types of prey indiscriminately. The adaptive significance of preferences for particular types of prey is discussed in the context of optimal-foraging theory.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→