MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4311522942 · doi:10.1242/jeb.243528

Neon goby fathers know best

2022· article· en· W4311522942 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea Murillo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experimental Biology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHatchingGobyNeonSpawn (biology)Fish <Actinopterygii>ZoologyBiologyNest (protein structural motif)FisheryEcologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The first life-altering step for a fish is leaving the safety of its nest and hatching into the big unknown. Researchers have long been fascinated with determining how embryos can discern when to hatch based on subtle cues from their environment. For the tiny neon goby (Elacatinus colini), the fathers decide for them, spitting the young from the seclusion of the nest when they feel the time is right. These small fish live in cylindrical sponges in the Belizean barrier reef, and the embryos are cared for by their fathers for up to a week before hatching. Armed with this knowledge, John Majoris from Boston University, USA, and a team of researchers from Humboldt University, Germany, and the University of Texas at Austin, USA, were interested in whether neon goby fathers can regulate the timing of their youngster's hatching and whether this translates to changes that would benefit the progeny once they hatched.Majoris and his team went diving off the coast of central Belize to collect neon goby adults before shipping them to the lab at Boston University. To figure out whether the fathers regulated the timing of hatching, the team coaxed the breeding pairs to spawn. Ingeniously, the team was able to create transparent acrylic shelters that resembled the cylindrical sponges that the neon gobies naturally live in, allowing them to monitor the fathers’ behavior before the embryos were due to hatch, and to video the hatching. When neon goby embryos were incubated with their fathers present, they hatched later, more in unison, and in a greater proportion than those incubated without their fathers present. This means that even though the embryos that were incubated with their fathers had the ability to hatch, they waited until the fathers gave their go-ahead to do so. The ability to hatch more in unison may also give neon goby larvae a leg up to life outside the nest by helping them deal with predators as they hatch.The researchers also found that, after hatching, the embryos that developed with their fathers were bigger and more developed than those that did not, which can translate into hatchlings that are better suited to swimming and feeding. These fathers can directly influence their youngster's ability to survive because they can recognize optimal environmental conditions more easily than the embryos. This makes sense as the embryos usually develop in nooks and crannies of the reefs, making it difficult to discern the right time to leave the nest. This crucial decision by neon goby fathers can help their youngsters have an advantage after hatching, proving that fathers know best.

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)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1480.050

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experimental Biology→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→