Richardson's ground squirrels (<i>Spermophilus richardsonii</i>) do not communicate predator movements via changes in call rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The call rate of repetitive alarm calls produced by Richardson's ground squirrels (Spermophilus richardsonii) conveys the extent of threat during predator encounters. It remains unknown, however, whether changes in call rate communicate predator movements. That is, does an increasing call rate indicate an approaching predator and a decreasing rate the opposite? We presented free-living squirrels with moving predator models and recorded their responses. Vigilant behaviour increased more when predators approached versus retreated, suggesting that squirrels recognize the changes in threat associated with predator movements. Squirrels rarely produced alarm calls during these encounters, however, suggesting that squirrels do not rely entirely on alarm vocalizations to assess the threat posed by potential predators. Receivers of manipulated calls did not respond differentially to alarm calls containing an increasing or decreasing rate of syllable production. Thus, while rate may encode information about the extent of threat, Richardson's ground squirrels do not communicate predator movements via changes in call rate.
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".