Changes driven by the evolution of higher group polarization in the guppy are consistent across different predation pressures and associated with neuroanatomical changes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract One of the most spectacular displays of social behavior is the synchronized movements that many animal groups perform to travel, forage and escape from predators. However, elucidating the neural mechanisms underlying the evolution of collective behaviors, as well as their fitness effects, remains challenging. Here, we study anti-predator behavior in guppies experimentally selected for divergence in polarization, an important behavioral aspect of coordinated movement. We find that groups from artificially selected lines remain more polarized than control groups in the presence of a threat. Neuroanatomical measurements of polarization-selected individuals indicated changes in brain regions previously suggested to be important regulators of perception, fear and attention, and motor response. Additional visual acuity and temporal resolution tests performed in polarization-selected and control individuals indicate that observed differences in anti-predator and schooling behavior should not be attributable to changes in visual perception, but rather are more likely the result of the more efficient relay of sensory input in the brain of polarization-selected fish. Our findings highlight that brain morphology may play a fundamental role in the evolution of coordinated movement and anti-predator behavior.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".