Ajustement des distances de fuite à l'homme chez<i>Marmota marmota</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flight distance is the quantitative measurement of the reactivity and response of an animal to a disturber or predator. Flight distance seems to vary with group size, distance to shelter, and direction of predator approach. We suggest that other factors may influence flight distance, such as frequency of interactions, presence of a dog with the experimenter, presence of pups in the family group outside the burrows, time of day, and number of animals on the home range outside the burrows. We tested these factors on alpine marmots (Marmota marmota) and bobac marmots (Marmota bobac). Alert and flight distances and exit delays are shorter in groups with frequent interactions and in nonhunted groups (M. marmota). The presence of a dog with the experimenter increased alert and flight distances. The presence of pups outside the burrows during the experiment caused an increase in alert and flight distances and in exit delays. Alert and flight distances decreased during the day. A positive correlation was found between alert and flight distances. Alpine marmots emit very few alarm calls in response to the presence of humans. These results correlated with the hypothesis of accommodation of wildlife to human interactions. Marmots adjust their flight distance, which enables them to maintain certain behaviours in spite of the presence of humans.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".