Testing dynamic variance‐sensitive foraging using individual differences in basal metabolic rates of zebra finches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social foragers can alternate between searching for food (producer tactic), and searching for other individuals that have located food in order to join them (scrounger tactic). Both tactics yield equal rewards on average, but the rewards generated by producer are more variable. A dynamic variance‐sensitive foraging model predicts that social foragers should increase their use of scrounger with increasing energy requirements and/or decreased food availability early in the foraging period. We tested whether natural variation in minimum energy requirements (basal metabolic rate or BMR) is associated with differences in the use of producer–scrounger foraging tactics in female zebra finches Taeniopygia guttata . As predicted by the dynamic variance‐sensitive model, high BMR individuals had significantly greater use of the scrounger tactic compared with low BMR individuals. However, we observed no effect of food availability on tactic use, indicating that female zebra finches were not variance‐sensitive foragers under our experimental conditions. This study is the first to report that variation in BMR within a species is associated with differences in foraging behaviour. BMR‐related differences in scrounger tactic use are consistent with phenotype‐dependent tactic use decisions. We suggest that BMR is correlated with another phenotypic trait which itself influences tactic use decisions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".