Differential responses of coyotes to novel stimuli in familiar and unfamiliar settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied behavioral responses of captive and wild coyotes (Canis latrans) toward novel objects and artificial scent stations to determine how they might respond to novel stimuli used in coyote management and research. When captive coyotes encountered novel stimuli in unfamiliar surroundings they showed little avoidance, while the same stimuli caused avoidance and neophobic reactions among coyotes when encountered in familiar surroundings. In the field phase of the study, radio-collared coyotes in southern Texas were intensively monitored in order to relate space-use patterns to the locations where these coyotes were exposed to artificial scent stations. Coyotes were more likely to respond to and score (record visits by leaving tracks) at artificial scent stations when these were encountered outside or on the periphery of their home areas than when they were encountered within their home area. This suggests that indices of coyote abundance that employ responses to novel situations may more readily record coyotes that are outside the central portions of their home areas and that transient or dispersing coyotes are more likely to be "counted" than residents.
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".