Antipredator vigilance decreases with food density in staging flocks of Semipalmated Sandpipers (<i>Calidris pusilla</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When animals face time constraints, antipredator vigilance is expected to decrease in patches with higher food density. Indeed, sacrifices in safety are worthwhile in rich food patches that allow substantial foraging gains in response to a decrease in vigilance. This prediction has received little empirical attention. I tested this prediction in fall-staging Semipalmated Sandpipers (Calidris pusilla (L., 1766)) using the frequency of looks while foraging as a proxy for vigilance. Fall-staging sandpipers face time constraints, as individuals must accumulate fat rapidly before undertaking their long migration south. Controlling for known correlates of vigilance, such as distance to obstructive cover, bird density, and position in the flock, the frequency of looks decreased as predicted when the density of food in a patch was higher. That vigilance can vary with food density is relevant for observational studies of vigilance. When food density is positively correlated with group size, food density can become a confounding factor in the well-known negative relationship between vigilance and group size.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".