Twenty-four-hour feeding and lying patterns of wild reindeer <i>Rangifer tarandus tarandus</i> in summer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We tested whether sunlight and insect harassment were important proximate factors (Zeitgebers) controlling feeding and lying patterns of wild reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus) in summer. With no insect harassment, feeding and lying each exhibited a polycyclic rhythm with, on average, 4 bouts at equal intervals during each 24-h period (unit-sum constraints in a polycyclic rhythm). When insects were absent, the activity percentages were 50 ± 4% feeding (mean ± SE) and 33 ± 4% lying for daytime and 44 ± 3% feeding and 47 ± 4% lying for nighttime, i.e., the percentage of time spent feeding was equal for daytime and nighttime (nychthemeral), while for lying it was not. With insects present, percentages of time spent feeding and lying were 18 ± 3 and 13 ± 3% for daytime and 45 ± 8 and 41 ± 8% for nighttime, respectively, i.e., neither feeding nor lying exhibited a nychthemeral pattern. During periods of insect harassment, 24-h feeding patterns had no cyclic rhythm, whereas lying remained cyclic, but the percentages of time spent lying during peak bouts (amplitude) and at peak duration (period) were unequal between night and day. Reindeer did not attune their activity to the set points of sunrise and sunset (not crepuscular), demonstrating that daylight is most likely not a powerful Zeitgeber for reindeer during summer.
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".