Effects of litter size on pup defence and weaning success of neighbouring bank vole females
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reproductive success of territorial female mammals depends partly on their capability to defend their young from conspecific intruders. However, how this is related to the characteristics of females and their litter sizes is largely unknown. The defence activity of 25 female bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus) in relation to the number of offspring was studied in a behavioural arena by manipulating litter sizes (2 pups or +2 pups). Infanticidal male bank voles were used as intruderspredators. Moreover, the weaning success (weaned at least one offspring or none) of 15 pairs of neighbouring females was investigated in a large indoor runway system. In each pair of females, the litter size of one female was reduced (2 pups) and the litter size of the other enlarged (+2 pups). Defence activity of females increased with the number of offspring and the mother's size. However, weaning success of neighbours was related only to their body mass, and litter-size manipulation did not affect weaning success. Present results indicate that, although bank vole females increase their defence intensity with an increase in the number of pups, the weaning success of neighbouring females may be primarily determined by their size and dominance rank.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".