MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1905866436 · doi:10.1139/z09-029

Effect of refuge distance on escape behavior of side-blotched lizards (Uta stansburiana)

2009· article· en· W1905866436 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter A. Zani, Trevor Jones, Ryan A. Neuhaus, Jonathan E. Milgrom

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLizardBiologyIntraspecific competitionSauriaPredationCliffEcologyKestrelZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Side-blotched lizards ( Uta stansburiana Baird and Girard, 1852) use sagebrush desert habitat above cliffs and typically flee over and down the nearest cliff when disturbed. We tested antipredator escape tactics of lizards to a common local snake, the western yellowbelly racer ( Coluber mormon Baird and Girard, 1852). Our goal was to determine if lizards use cliffs as a refuge from snakes, which cannot climb the sheer rock face, and whether distance to refuge affects escape behavior. We located undisturbed lizards above a cliff and approached them from a random direction with a realistic rubber snake model. When the snake model approached, lizards fled nonrandomly toward the nearest cliff refuge, indicating considerable spatial awareness. Lizards fled more directly toward the cliff the farther from the cliff they were found. However, when beyond ~15 m from the cliff the escape behavior of lizards changed to one of flight in circles (nondirectional) without hiding. Performance capacity (endurance) of the lizards is much greater than 15 m, indicating that lizards have the physiological capacity to reach the cliff. We suggest that the costs of potential intraspecific interactions (i.e., escape into unfamiliar or a competitor’s territory) are greater than the immediate risks of predation by snakes.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.743
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations36
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207