Time-sensitive neophobic responses to risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prey animals that experience a high background level of risk are known to exhibit considerable phenotypic plasticity in their responses to unknown predators. When background risk is high, prey exhibit neophobic responses to unknown odours, i.e. they show a fear response to any new stimulus. Here, we examine whether temporal variation in the pattern of risk to which prey are exposed influences neophobic responses. To establish prey groups with different temporal patterns of risk, embryonic woodfrogs (Lithobates sylvaticus) were exposed to conspecific alarm cues each morning and control cues in the evening, or conspecific alarm cues each evening and control cues in the morning, for their entire embryonic period. After the tadpoles hatched they were tested at both times of day for known risk cues (alarm cues), unknown predator odours or water control. Tadpoles responded to alarm cues at any time of day, but showed neophobic responses to predator odours only if their test time matched their embryonic risk exposure time. These results demonstrate a high level of sophistication of neophobic responses and points to temporal variation in risk as a key driver of antipredator decision making.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".