Activity Budgets and Time Treatments of Lion (<i>Panthera leo</i>) Cubs under Human Imprinting at Antelope Park, Gweru, Zimbabwe
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In African Lions Panthera leo , human imprinting was suggested as one option of pre-release training of orphaned cubs, but success of this option has rarely been explored. This study assesses the success of human imprinting on captive-bred lion cubs at Antelope Park in Gweru, Zimbabwe. Activity diversity, activity budgets and response to non-wild objects were compared in three levels of human imprinting (high, medium and low) using the focal technique. Six lion cubs were used for this study (two in each imprinting category). Data were collected during early morning, mid-morning and late afternoon sessions from October to November 2011. In the three levels of human imprinting, resting and locomotion had the largest proportion of time compared to playing, visual exploration, feeding, human interaction and hunting. Lion cubs with low imprinting displayed the most “hunting instincts” and aggressive behaviour toward humans and vehicles, compared to those with high and medium imprinting levels. At the age of the cubs under study (9-13 months) hunting was not expected to be successful, but the display of some hunting instincts was encouraging in the high and medium imprinted cubs. Although the small sample size used in this study and the need to continue monitoring the cubs restrict conclusions that can be made from this assessment, such early signs of the success of human imprinting could be encouraging for human imprinting.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".