Risk perception of nesting Great Blue Herons: experimental evidence of habituation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The nesting behaviour of the Great Blue Heron ( Ardea herodias L., 1758) was studied in western Canada in 1998 and 1999 to (i) investigate how individual parents assess risk when repeatedly exposed to a disturbance stimulus (an investigator) and (ii) experimentally test in the field whether any variation in their nest defense behaviour was due to experience with the disturbance stimuli or the stage of the nesting period. Heron response declined through the nesting period and the level of response varied among colonies, suggesting different perceptions of risk among groups of herons in the study. It was experimentally shown that variation in the response of herons through one nesting period was due to both behavioural habituation and the stage of the nesting period. Response was stronger in 1999 than in 1998, indicating that habituation did not hold between nesting periods. In general, habituation in herons may bode well for their potential to persist in areas with light human use. But irrespective of habituation, stimuli early in the nesting period and large or novel events may still cause herons to abandon their nests owing to the effects of the stage of the nesting period.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".