Kinship does not affect vigilance in Columbian ground squirrels (<i>Urocitellus columbianus</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vigilance, a vital behaviour in prey species, is affected by many factors, including social group size and possibly the presence of relatives. Columbian ground squirrels ( Urocitellus columbianus (Ord, 1815)) show a group-size effect of reduced individual vigilance in larger groups owing to increased predator detection. Such groups are composed of both kin and nonkin individuals. We observed vigilance (raising head above shoulders while foraging) of yearling males and yearling and older females, and examined kin relationships that are learned in the natal nest (viz., uterine kin). We then tested for possible effects of kinship on vigilance and thus on the group-size effect. Because of the kin-biased behaviours and nepotistic alarm calls shown by ground squirrels in previous studies, we expected either a kin-cooperative influence on vigilance or a nepotistic asymmetrical effect on vigilance,. We found that the presence of kin (whether above ground or not) had little or no effect on vigilance. This lack of kin effect reveals that Columbian ground squirrels do not rely any more on close relatives than on unrelated group members for detecting predators. Thus, the presence of kin does not contribute to the group-size effect on vigilance.
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".