Data from: Bobbing and fin-flicking in a small benthic fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most anti-predator strategies increase survival of individuals by signalling to predators, by reducing the chances of being recognised as prey, or by bewildering a predator's perception. In fish, bobbing and fin-flicking are commonly considered as pursuit‑deterrent behaviours that signal a predator that it has been detected and thus lost its surprise-attack advantage. Yet, very few studies assessed whether such behavioural traits are restricted to the visual presence of a predator. In this study, we used the yellow black-headed triplefin Tripterygion delaisi to investigate the association between these behaviours and the visual exposure to (1) a black scorpionfish predator (Scorpaena porcus), (2) a stone of a size similar to that of S. porcus, (3) a conspecific, and 4) a harmless heterospecific combtooth blenny (Parablennius sanguinolentus). We used a laboratory-controlled experiment with freshly caught fish designed to test for differences in visual cues only. Distance kept by the focal fish to each stimulus, frequency of bobbing and fin-flicking were recorded. Triplefins kept greater distance from the stimulus compartment when a scorpionfish predator was visible. Bobbing was more frequent in the visual presence of a scorpionfish, but also shown towards the other stimuli. However, fin flicks were equally abundant across all stimuli. Both behaviours decreased in frequency over time suggesting that triplefin become gradually comfortable in a non-changing new environment. We discuss why bobbing and fin-flicking are not exclusive pursuit‑deterrent behaviours in this species, and propose additional non-exclusive functions such as enhancing depth perception by parallax motion (bobbing) or signalling vigilance (fin‑flicking).
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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.024 |
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".