MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Adult Richardson's Ground Squirrels (<i>Spermophilus richardsonii</i>) Ignore Rate Changes in Juvenile Alarm Calls: Age‐Differential Response Urgency Perception?

2006· article· en· W1989964042 on OpenAlexafffund
Jennifer L. Sloan, James F. Hare

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsJuvenileALARMVigilance (psychology)Alarm signalPsychologyPerceptionTonic (physiology)AudiologyCommunicationBiologyEcologyCognitive psychologyNeuroscienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Juvenile Richardson's ground squirrels (RGS; Spermophilus richardsonii ) communicate response urgency by modulating the rate of syllable production in repetitive alarm calls, although longer call bouts do not promote more pronounced or longer‐lasting (tonic) vigilance in juvenile call recipients. We exposed free‐living adult RGS to playbacks of alarm calls differing in rate and length to determine whether adult receivers respond to the same alarm parameters as juveniles. Adult squirrels did not respond differentially to differences in call rate or length, suggesting that adult RGS do not attend to call rate as do juveniles. This difference in response may be attributable to a developmental change in the perceptual mechanisms by which individuals extract information regarding response urgency, but could also be a product of adult receivers devaluing information encoded in alarm calls emitted by relatively inexperienced juvenile signalers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations20
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207