Male and female voles do not differ in their assessments of predation risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A forager's willingness to trade off safety for food varies with its energetic state. Animals in a low energetic state should accept higher risk than animals with larger energy reserves. In mammals, energy expenditure by females on gestation and lactation may exceed the relatively low cost of sperm production by males. It follows, if reproductive costs are indeed higher for females than for males, that reproductive females may be more likely than males to trade safety for food. Thus, we evaluated the use of safe versus risky foraging patches by male and female meadow voles using putatively safe and risky habitats. We also used behavioural trials to assess whether sexual differences in personality could account for any differences in patch use. Voles preferred to forage in safe patches over risky ones. There was no difference between male and female voles, or between reproductive and non-reproductive individuals, in their respective use of safe versus risky foraging patches. Personality also had no effect on patch choice. The results are consistent with recent studies on other species that have failed to find differences in reproductive costs between the sexes. Experiments on foraging behaviour might thus provide simple and repeatable tests for sexual differences and similarities in reproductive costs.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".