Repetitive calls of juvenile Richardson's ground squirrels (<i>Spermophilus richardsonii</i>) communicate response urgency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Richardson's ground squirrels, Spermophilus richardsonii, produce both repetitive and non-repetitive antipredator calls. While many hypotheses have been advanced to explain non-repetitive calls, the function of repetitive calling has received relatively little attention. We presented juvenile Richardson's ground squirrels with a predator model at distances ranging from 1 to 8 m and recorded the subsequent repetitive calls on digital audiotape. The rate of calling was inversely correlated with the distance between the model and the caller, with distance explaining almost 24% of the variation in call rate. To determine whether call recipients use that information, we manipulated the intersyllable latency of a single repetitive call exemplar to form 3 test stimuli varying only in call rate. Across 16 Richardson's ground squirrel colonies to which these calls were broadcast, the proportion of squirrels assuming the highly vigilant, alert posture increased with the rate of the repetitive call presented. Hence, juvenile Richardson's ground squirrels appear to communicate the proximity and presumably the degree of threat posed by potential predators.
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".