Data from: Wild and laboratory exposure to cues of predation risk increases relative brain mass in male guppies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable diversity in brain size within and among species, and substantial dispute over the causes, consequences and importance of this variation. Comparative and developmental studies are essential in addressing this controversy. Predation pressure has been proposed as a major force shaping brain, behaviour and life history. The Trinidadian guppy, Poecilia reticulata, shows dramatic variation in predation pressure across populations. We compared the brain mass of guppies from high and low predation populations collected in the wild. Male but not female guppies exposed to high predation possessed heavier brains for their body size compared to fish from low predation populations. The brain is a plastic organ, so it is possible that the population differences we observed were partly due to developmental responses rather than evolved differences. In a follow‐up study, we raised guppies under cues of predation risk or in a control condition. Male guppies exposed to predator cues early in life had heavier brains relative to their body size than control males, while females showed no significant effect of treatment. Collectively our results suggest that male guppies exposed to predation invest more in neural tissue, and that these differences are at least partly driven by plastic responses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.010 |
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".