On lactation and rumination in bighorn ewes ( <i>Ovis canadensis</i> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because lactation has high energetic costs, females should vary their foraging behaviour according to reproductive status. In ungulates, however, some studies found no differences in feeding behaviour between non-reproductive (yeld) and lactating females. Despite the importance of rumination in determining digestive efficiency, no study has attempted to identify tactics involving this parameter in free-ranging ungulates. Whether or not females varied their ruminating behaviour as a function of the presence/absence of offspring was tested by observing marked bighorn ewes Ovis canadensis of known reproductive status, age, and body weight. Lactating ewes ruminated 1.21 times faster than yeld ewes and showed less inter-individual variability in rumination speed, suggesting an energetic constraint. After considering the potential physiological advantages of this behaviour, I suggest that differences in ruminating parameters may allow the synchronization of activities in groups made up of individuals with different energy requirements. Lactating females may increase rumination effort in response to increased energetic demands and risk of predation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".