MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008913221 · doi:10.1139/z00-037

Eurasian beavers (<i>Castor fiber</i>) behavioral response to simulated territorial intruders

2000· article· en· W2008913221 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Frank Rosell, Geir Odd Johansen, Howard Parker

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and biodiversity studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeaverDominance (genetics)BiologyCastor canadensisAgonistic behaviourEcologyObligateZoologySocial psychologyPsychologyAggression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Eurasian beavers (Castor fiber) live in family groups that defend territories against other conspecifics. Part of this territorial defence involves constructing scent mounds near the stream bank within territories and marking them with castoreum, a urine-based fluid from the castor sacs, and (or) anal-gland secretion. The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that Eurasian beavers show one or more forms of territorial behavior when an intruder, simulated in the form of experimental scent mounds (ESMs), has scent-marked inside the territory. We predicted that beavers would show a stronger response to ESMs with castoreum than to those without. Results showed that 85% of all beaver families (N = 20) made one or more behavioral responses to ESMs marked with castoreum from foreign adult males, whereas no ESMs presented without castoreum received a response. We therefore conclude that a main function of territorial marking by beavers is to advertise spatially related dominance status, thereby providing opportunities for intruders to assess the presence of the owner and reducing the cost and risks of agonistic conflict for both the owner and intruders. Additionally, it appears to be the scent emitted from an ESM and not the sight of it to which beavers respond.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0170.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.207 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicEcology and biodiversity studiesFrench-language works237,207