Bluffing and Waiting: Handling Effects and Post‐Release Immobility in a Death‐Feigning Snake (<i>Natrix natrix</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tonic immobility is a common response of animals to capture by a predator; in some cases, the behaviour is elaborated into death‐feigning. Death‐feigning is usually interpreted as a last‐resort anti‐predator tactic that depends on the predator ceasing or slowing its attack when the prey is apparently dead, thus buying time for the prey to escape if the predator’s attention is directed elsewhere, even momentarily. I tested the effects of different handling regimes on the expression of death‐feigning in the grass snake ( Natrix natrix ). In one test, degree of handling had a significant effect on frequency of death‐feigning in small snakes, with snakes that received more handling feigning death more often. A second test showed that different initial handling regimes also affected the probability of death‐feigning in large snakes, with snakes initially held by the tail feigning death least frequently and those initially held by the head most frequently. Thus, increased apparent threat to a vulnerable part of the body is more likely to result in death‐feigning. It remains to be seen whether death‐feigning can reduce the threat posed by real predators, but immobility is frequently carried over into the post‐release period, during which the animal presumably weighs its chances and awaits an opportunity to escape. Regardless of cause, death‐feigning snakes exhibited significantly more frequent and longer post‐release immobility than did non‐death‐feigning snakes, which typically fled immediately upon release. Overall, small snakes feigned death less frequently than adults and were more likely to flee upon release, suggesting that immobility is a riskier anti‐predator defence strategy for them.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".