Signaler and Receiver Ages Do Not Affect Responses to Richardson's Ground Squirrel Alarm Calls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alarm calls alert receivers to the presence and/or nature of a predatory threat. Studies of alarm communication in Richardson's ground squirrels (Spermophilus richardsonii) have focused on juvenile signalers and receivers; however, adult and juvenile receivers may tailor their response to alarm calls based on different underlying signal parameters and attend differentially to alarm calls broadcast by adult versus juvenile signalers. To examine the potential influence of signaler and receiver age on the perception of response urgency, we presented free-living juvenile and adult S. richardsonii with alarm calls produced by juveniles and adults. Behavioral responses of call recipients were videotaped and analyzed to determine the influence of signaler and receiver age-class. No differences in vigilance response after juvenile- and adult-produced calls were detected for either adult or juvenile receivers. At the proximate level, the absence of any detectable difference in the acoustic attributes of juvenile-versus adult-produced calls may account for the lack of differential response. The absence of any age-dependent productional difference also is consistent with the recently advanced notion of young concealing information regarding their age in their alarm signals.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".