The role of donor and receiver size in the response to public cues in Hart’s rivulus, Anablepsoides hartii
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aquatic prey use chemical alarm cues as public information sources to optimize behavioural decisions. Recent studies suggest that the contextual value of these cues is shaped by their source, the size of the donor relative to the receiver, and the size of the receiver itself. Here, we exposed Hart’s rivulus (Anablepsoides hartii) to conspecific or heterospecific alarm cues from donors that were either smaller or larger than the mean focal rivulus size. Smaller rivulus reduced foraging in response to conspecific and heterospecific cues, regardless of donor size. However, larger rivulus exhibited no reduction in foraging towards small conspecific cues and increased foraging towards small heterospecific cues. Additionally, while conspecific donors elicited strong predator avoidance, rivulus exhibited stronger responses to large vs. small heterospecific cues. Our results demonstrate that the value of alarm cues is shaped by the interacting effects of receiver size and the size and species of cue donors.
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 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".