Relationship between Distance to Cover, Vigilance and Group Size in Staging Flocks of Semipalmated Sandpipers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Cover can be either a source of protection or a source of danger for foragers. Distance to cover creates a gradient in predation risk that allows examining adjustments in anti‐predator behaviour such as group size and vigilance. As distance to obstructive cover increases, both group size and vigilance are expected to decrease given that individuals have more time to react to a more distant source of danger. I provide an empirical test of these predictions in staging semipalmated sandpipers ( Calidris pusilla ) in a system controlling for many confounding factors that have marred earlier research. Controlling for food density, forager density and phenotypic attributes often correlated with distance to cover, I found that as distance to obstructive cover increased, sandpipers foraged in sparser groups, were less flighty and to some extent less vigilant. Such controlled studies are needed to re‐assess the relationship between distance to cover and anti‐predator behaviour.
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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".