MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047019028 · doi:10.1139/z06-175

Do pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) perceive roads as a predation risk?

2006· article· en· W2047019028 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Sonia Gavin, Petr E. Komers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsVigilance (psychology)ForagingPredationRisk perceptionWildlifeBiologyEcologyPerceptionDisturbance (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The risk–disturbance hypothesis proposes that organisms respond to generalized threat stimuli; therefore, human disturbances that elicit these behaviours will cause individuals to behave similarly to avoid a natural predator. Studies have shown that pronghorn antelope, Antilocapra americana (Ord, 1815), are influenced by human disturbances. We examined several intensities of human activity and distance from disturbances as indicators of risk perception in pronghorns. We investigated whether pronghorns exhibited risk-avoidance behaviour towards road traffic consistent with the risk–disturbance hypothesis by comparing vigilance and foraging behaviour observations across increasing traffic levels and proximity to roads. Pronghorns showed higher vigilance and lower foraging times along high traffic roads during the spring season compared with lower traffic levels, suggesting that risk perception is related to traffic level. Moreover, individuals within close proximity to roads regardless of traffic level exhibited higher vigilance levels, indicating that there is an overall risk perceived towards roads. Our results also suggest that individuals in herds with young are more risk averse than other social groupings and individuals in larger groups perceive less risk. We suggest that consequences of risk-avoidance behaviour should be reflected in land-use plans that address road densities and traffic levels to better manage wildlife.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

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

Citations89
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207