Both the past and the present affect risk-sensitive decisions of foraging rufous hummingbirds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is substantial evidence that an animal's current energy budget affects its preference for food patches that provide a constant reward relative to patches that provide a variable reward, when both patches have the same mean reward. Animals currently on a positive energy budget are expected to choose the constant option, whereas animals on a negative budget are expected to use the variable option. There is increasing evidence that prior experience can affect an animal's current decisions. We investigated choices made by rufous hummingbirds when they were tested with strong or weak sucrose solutions after several days of foraging on those strong or weak solutions. Foraging from weak concentrations prior to and during testing led to a higher preference for the variable option, whereas foraging from strong concentrations led to an increased preference for the constant option. We suggest that the energetic conditions experienced by animals prior to testing had a significant impact on the animals’ risk-sensitive decisions, and their memories of those prior conditions may have played an additional role. This implies that the conditions animals are maintained under prior to testing may significantly affect the outcome of risk-sensitivity experiments.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".