MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Group‐Size Effect on Vigilance and Foraging in a Predator‐Free Population of Feral Goats (<i>Capra hircus</i>) on the Isle of Rum, NW Scotland

2010· article· en· W2056583935 on OpenAlexaff
Jianbin Shi, Guy Beauchamp, Robin Dunbar

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersHenry Lester TrustBeijing Normal UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaUniversity of LiverpoolBritish AcademyScottish Natural Heritage
KeywordsForagingVigilance (psychology)PredationCapra hircusBiologyEcologyPopulationPredatorPopulation sizeZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many previous studies have found that as group size increases, individual vigilance levels decrease and forage intake increases (group‐size effect), but few such studies have considered the impact of within‐group interactions and other confounding factors on the direction of group‐size effects. A free‐ranging population of feral goats ( Capra hircus ), with little predation threat, was studied on the Isle of Rum (northwest Scotland), from Jun. to Nov. 2000, to investigate the effects of group size on individual vigilance levels and foraging efficiency after taking into account the effect of confounding factors (e.g. sex, season, time of day, habitat, predation risk) and within‐group interactions (via changes in movement rates while feeding). Our results show that, while group size exerted a negative influence on individual vigilance levels and a positive effect on movement rate, foraging efficiency never increased with group size and even decreased at certain times of day. There was no sex difference in individual vigilance in feral goats, but foraging efficiency was higher in females than in males. Goats were more vigilant in fall than in summer. The results imply that the benefits for foraging obtained from the reduced vigilance level in larger groups may be constrained or offset by increased interaction (or competition) within larger groups even in a population that faces negligible predation risk.

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.226

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207