Ontogeny of the responses of European rabbits (<i>Oryctolagus cuniculus</i>) to aerial and ground predators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The responses of adult (6-9 months old) and young (5-8 weeks old) rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) to their natural predators were tested. The aims of our experiments were to investigate whether (i) inexperienced rabbits would avoid a stuffed goshawk but not a non-bird-like control object and (ii) adult rabbits would behave differently toward an aerial and a terrestrial predator model on their first encounter, and (iii) to compare the inherited antipredator behaviour of adult and young rabbits toward the two types of predators. We tested only naïve rabbits and used a stuffed goshawk and fox as predators. Our results showed that under controlled laboratory conditions (i) a stuffed predator could elicit avoidance behaviour in rabbits without previous experience with predators; (ii) adult rabbits behaved differently toward the stuffed fox and goshawk; (iii) the behaviour of young rabbits was less differentiated, and their "quantitative" response developed into the adults' well-structured defensive behaviour without any experience with predators.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".