Does the presence of an odd individual affect group choice?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data collected by FQ. Please refer to the manuscript for data collection methods and statistical analyses. Metadata for the .csv data files are included in the ReadMe.txt file. For questions or to notify the authors if any errors are identified in the data, please contact quattrinifausto@gmail.com or dominique.roche@mail.mcgill.ca This table contains the data recorded during an experiment to examine how the presence of an ‘odd’ individual in a shoal affects the behaviour and group choice of three species of coral reef fishes. ABSTRACT: Intra-specific group formation (shoaling) is common in fishes and provides several antipredator benefits, such as improved food and predator detection. However, coral reef fishes often form mixed-species shoals, which can generate costs for some group members. For example, the oddity effect posits that individuals that stand out from a group are more likely to be targeted by predators. Consequently, the presence of an odd fish might reduce the risk of predation to other group members. Alternatively, an odd individual that attracts predators might increase predation risk for the group as a whole. We examined three species of coral reef fishes using two-choice tests to investigate 1) whether individuals chose to associate with conspecifics over heterospecifics (i.e. the oddity effect), and 2) whether individuals associate with or avoid shoals containing an odd individual. We tested this second scenario under conditions of low- and high-predation pressure by manipulating the presence of a nearby predator. One species actively avoided associating with shoals of heterospecifics in support of the oddity effect. Less pronounced phenotypic differences between species pairs likely resulted in a lower relative risk of being odd and the absence of an oddity effects in the other two species. None of the three species showed either active avoidance or preference for shoals containing an odd individual. In instances where the oddity effect is apparent, lower predation risk to individuals associating with an odd fish might be negated by greater predation pressure on the group as a whole
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.016 | 0.002 |
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".