The More the Scarier: Adult Richardson’s Ground Squirrels (<i>Spermophilus richardsonii</i>) Assess Response Urgency Via the Number of Alarm Signallers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Richardson’s ground squirrels (RGS) produce alarm calls that warn conspecifics of potential predators. We presented free‐living adult and juvenile RGS with playbacks of repetitive alarm calls from one vs. two juvenile callers broadcast sequentially through two spatially separated loudspeakers. Adult RGS spent a greater proportion of time vigilant in response to two vs. one calling squirrel, whereas juvenile RGS did not respond differentially to two vs. one caller. Apparently then, the relative inexperience of juvenile RGS with alarm calls and the context in which such calls are emitted precludes their enumeration of alarm callers. Taken together with our earlier finding that adult but not juvenile RGS ignore information regarding response urgency encoded in the rate of juvenile produced repetitive calls, our present results suggest a developmental shift in response‐urgency perception. Adult RGS selectively extract information regarding response urgency via discrimination of the number of callers, ignoring less reliable information encoded in the rate of repetitive calls issued by inexperienced juvenile signallers.
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) | 0.002 | 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".