MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mate location tactics in garter snakes: effects of rival males, interrupted trails and non‐pheromonal cues

2005· article· en· W2036480505 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Shine, Jonathan K. Webb, Amanda Lane, R. T. Mason

Bibliographic record

VenueFunctional Ecology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThamnophis sirtalisVomeronasal organSensory cueBiologyOlfactory cuesZoologyEcologyCommunicationOlfactionOlfactory systemPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The ability to follow substrate‐deposited scent trails using sophisticated vomeronasal abilities is a key feature of snake biology. However, previous research on this topic has derived mostly from a highly artificial test situation: captive snakes following continuous trails over structurally simple homogeneous substrates, in the absence of any other cues (e.g. visual or olfactory) either from the target of that search or from other snakes. Our field experimental trials with Red‐Sided Garter Snakes ( Thamnophis sirtalis parietalis ) at a communal den in Manitoba explored wider issues in mate location. Males followed a female's trail less successfully if she had recently been followed by rival males, suggesting that trailing males obscured the cues left by the female. Males that lost contact with a female's trail exhibited stereotyped, spatially extensive and prolonged circling behaviour centred on the last point at which the trail was detectable; in nature, this behaviour would maximize the male's ability to relocate a discontinuous trail. Trail‐following males switched from chemical to visual cues as soon as they were close to a female, enhancing speed but decreasing the accuracy of mate location (because males could distinguish between females and other males based on either visual or airborne olfactory cues). Incorporating additional cues and broader spatial scales can clarify aspects of trail‐following behaviour not evident from studies in small, highly simplified laboratory situations.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.202 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFunctional EcologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207