Ant predation towards termite and treehopper baits in the Ecuadorian Amazon
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals may develop mutualistic associations with other species, whereby prey offer resources or services in exchange for protection from predators. Alternatively, prey may offer resources or services directly to their would-be predators in exchange for their lives. The latter may be the case of hemipterans that engage in mutualistic interactions with ants by offering a honeydew reward. We test the extent to which a honeydew offering vs. partner recognition may play a role as proximate mechanisms deterring ants from predating upon their hemipteran partners. We show that, when presented with a choice between a hemipteran partner and an alternative prey type, mutualist ants were less likely to attack and more likely to remain probing their hemipteran partners. This occurred even in the absence of an immediate sugary reward, suggesting either an evolved or learned partner recognition response. To a similar extent, however, ants were also less likely to attack the alternative prey type when laced with honey, even after the honey had been depleted, suggesting an ability of ants to recognize new potential sources of honey. Either possibility suggests a degree of innate or learned partner recognition.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".