Vigilance and fright behaviour in the insular Svalbard reindeer (<i>Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The insular Svalbard reindeer ( Rangifer tarandus platyrhynchus Vrolik, 1829) provide an opportunity to study vigilance behaviour in the absence of predators and parasitizing insects. We measured vigilance and fright and flight response during summer 2006 in the Svalbard archipelago; in four areas on Nordenskiöld Land on the island Spitzbergen and in one area on the island Edgeøya. Vigilance was higher in reindeer on Edgeøya than in the four Spitzbergen areas. Males were less vigilant than lactating and barren females and vigilance decreased with increasing group size. The relaxed vigilance behaviour in Svalbard reindeer compared with wild reindeer in southern Norway demonstrates a vigilance threshold in the absence of traditional predators of Rangifer Hamilton Smith, 1827. Alert, flight initiation, and escape distances were all shorter in Adventdalen, with Longyearbyen and its considerably higher amounts of human activities and infrastructure than in the other study areas, supporting evidence of habituation towards humans. There were no systematic vigilance or differences in fright and flight responses between reindeer in Colesdalen, Reindalen, and Sassendalen, indicating that a combination of low level of human activities including hunting, recreation, and scientific activities affected the animals differently. Lower probability of assessing before fleeing in Edgeøya (63% vs. 94% in the Nordenskiöld Land areas), along with their higher vigilance, may indicate more frequent interactions with polar bears ( Ursus maritimus Phipps, 1774) in Edgeøya.
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) | 0.000 | 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".