MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anti‐Predator Behavior of Vancouver Island Marmots: Using Congeners to Evaluate Abilities of a Critically Endangered Mammal

2001· article· en· W2119093745 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel T. Blumstein, Janice C. Daniel, Andrew A. Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenueEthology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarmotPredatorPredationCritically endangeredEndangered speciesMammalEcologyGeographyBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioral comparisons between endangered species and their congeners may provide valuable data with which to test ideas about declining populations or the future direction of recovery efforts. We considered the case of the highly endangered Vancouver Island marmot ( Marmota vancouverensis ). Predation is a current source of mortality, and inadequate anti‐predator behavior could have profound ramifications for the future success of re‐introductions. We tested whether M. vancouverensis anti‐predator behavior was unusual or ‘deficient’ by quantifying it and comparing it to 13 other marmot species. We found no evidence that Vancouver Island marmots were unwary. If anything, the converse was true. Vancouver Island marmots were responsive and vigilant towards real and simulated predatory threats. They dug numerous escape burrows that reduced the likelihood of predation. Our results have several implications for future recovery efforts, one of which was to establish ‘baseline’ flight‐response targets that captive‐bred Vancouver Island marmots will have to meet or exceed prior to release into predator‐rich environments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations48
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207