Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Vigilance studies have mostly focused on adaptive changes in antipredator behavior during the day. Adjustments in vigilance patterns in species that also forage at night are poorly known. Birds may forage at night to evade predation or other sources of disturbance, in which case levels of vigilance are expected to decrease at night. However, low visibility at night, especially on moonless nights, may compromise visual detection of predators, in which case levels of vigilance are expected to increase at night. We examined the effect of time of day on vigilance in non‐breeding Greater Flamingos foraging in a tropical lagoon complex in Venezuela. Vigilance increased on darker nights but overall levels of vigilance at night did not differ from daytime values. Vigilance decreased with group size in a similar fashion both during day and night. Flamingos foraged in smaller flocks at night than during the day. The occurrence of small flocks, in which vigilance was quite high, and the increase in vigilance on dark nights imply that the amount of time allocated to foraging must be generally lower at night in flamingos. The results suggest that the night was not perceived as safer by foraging flamingos, and that visual detection of predators was probably compromised by low light levels.
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) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".