Spatiotemporal visual statistics of aquatic environments in the natural habitats of zebrafish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal sensory systems are tightly adapted to the demands of their environment. In the visual domain, research has shown that many species have circuits and systems that exploit statistical regularities in natural visual signals. The zebrafish is a popular model animal in visual neuroscience, but relatively little quantitative data is available about the visual properties of the aquatic habitats where zebrafish reside, as compared to terrestrial environments. Improving our understanding of the visual demands of the aquatic habitats of zebrafish can enhance the insights about sensory neuroscience yielded by this model system. We analyzed a video dataset of zebrafish habitats captured by a stationary camera and compared this dataset to videos of terrestrial scenes in the same geographic area. Our analysis of the spatiotemporal structure in these videos suggests that zebrafish habitats are characterized by low visual contrast and strong motion when compared to terrestrial environments. Similar to terrestrial environments, zebrafish habitats tended to be dominated by dark contrasts, particularly in the lower visual field. We discuss how these properties of the visual environment can inform the study of zebrafish visual behavior and neural processing and, by extension, can inform our understanding of the vertebrate brain.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".