Movement patterns of male common voles (<i>Microtus arvalis</i>) in a network of Y junctions: role of distant visual cues and scent marks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Common voles (Microtus arvalis) use networks of runways around their burrows, which are dug in meadows. Their orientation among such networks could be based on rigid "egocentred" routes (possibly through the use of olfactory "trails") or on more general, "allocentred" spatial representations (with distant visual cues). In this 5-day study, male voles should reach food in the centre of a maze of three-way (Y) junctions offering similar local views but surrounded by distant visual cues. I tested whether the animals navigated using olfactory trails, implying one main direct foraging route, or allocentered representations, allowing flexibility among equivalent routes. Males quickly marked their environment, preferentially at the periphery, where they moved the most. However, during most direct trips between the nest and the food, they used one of the central shortest routes, which included the least scent-marked zones. Moreover, the voles preferred different shortest routes to go to the food and return from it, showing a bias in favour of the side where the distant goal (food or nest) was situated. This suggests that male common voles base their choices on the general direction of their goal rather than on trails. Finally, there was no major difference in initial exploration between a clean and a scent-marked maze.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".