MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292678034 · doi:10.1111/brv.12891

A synthesis of deimatic behaviour

2022· review· en· W4292678034 on OpenAlexaff
Eleanor Drinkwater, William L. Allen, John A. Endler, Roger T. Hanlon, Grace G. Holmes, Nicholas T. Homziak, Changku Kang, Brian C. Leavell, Jussi Lehtonen, Karl Loeffler‐Henry, John M. Ratcliffe, Candy Rowe, Graeme D. Ruxton, Tom N. Sherratt, John Skelhorn, Chelsea Skojec, Hannah R. Smart, Thomas E. White, Jayne E. Yack, Catherine Young, Kate D. L. Umbers

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCarleton University
FundersAustralian Research CouncilBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilNational Research Foundation of KoreaAcademy of FinlandUniversity of South Alabama
KeywordsCausationProximate and ultimate causationValue (mathematics)Field (mathematics)PsychologyCognitive psychologyEpistemologyCognitive scienceComputer sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deimatic behaviours, also referred to as startle behaviours, are used against predators and rivals. Although many are spectacular, their proximate and ultimate causes remain unclear. In this review we aim to synthesise what is known about deimatic behaviour and identify knowledge gaps. We propose a working hypothesis for deimatic behaviour, and discuss the available evidence for the evolution, ontogeny, causation, and survival value of deimatic behaviour using Tinbergen's Four Questions as a framework. Our overarching aim is to direct future research by suggesting ways to address the most pressing questions in this field.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.152
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations62
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiological reviews/Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical SocietySame topicInsect and Arachnid Ecology and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207