MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132311131 · doi:10.1139/z09-077

Islet tameness: escape behavior and refuge use in populations of the Balearic lizard (Podarcis lilfordi) exposed to differing predation pressure

2009· article· en· W2132311131 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
William E. Cooper, Dror Hawlena, Valentín Pérez‐Mellado

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationBiologyLizardPredatorEcologyEscape responseZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prey often exhibit reduced escape behavior on islands where predators are absent or scarce. Models of escape and refuge use predict that prey from populations having lower predation pressure have shortened flight initiation distance (FID; distance between a predator and a prey when escape begins), reduced distance fled and tendency to enter refuge, and shortened hiding time before emerging from refuge. By ourselves simulating approaching predators, we tested these predictions for two populations of the Balearic lizard, Podarcis lilfordi (Müller, 1927), on the islets of Rei (higher predation pressure) and Aire (lower) adjacent to Menorca. FID, distance fled, and hiding time were shorter and probability of entering refuge was lower on Aire than on Rei, confirming all predictions. All effect sizes were large, indicating major differences in antipredatory behavior between islets. These findings are consistent with data for other lizards on FID and limited data on distance fled and refuge entry. The effect of predation pressure on hiding time is a novel finding. Our results and those of previous studies suggest that relaxation of predation pressure leads to reduced natural selection for maintenance of antipredatory behavior at all stages of predator–prey interactions over a relatively short time span.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations41
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207