Bibliographic record
Abstract
Visual obstructions can cause an increase in antipredator vigilance in prey animals by making predator detection more difficult. However, visual obstructions can also skew the perception of group size and inter‐individual distances and impair the detection of alarm signals by conspecifics. These changes within the group alone can cause an increase in vigilance. To disentangle the contribution of these various factors to changes in vigilance, I documented vigilance in a gregarious species, the semipalmated sandpiper Calidris pusilla , foraging in a habitat where a naturally‐occurring visual barrier partially prevented predator detection without altering the transfer of information about predation risk within the group. I used a matched sampling design to collect vigilance data for birds using adjacent areas with and without the visual barrier. In the visually‐obstructed area, sandpipers maintained a higher level of vigilance, occurred farther away from cover and in smaller flocks, and preferentially scanned the area of danger with one eye in particular. All these changes suggest that visual obstruction increased perceived predation risk. I conclude that it is the inability to get a good view of any approaching predator, rather than changes in intra‐group communication that caused the increase in vigilance in the visually‐obstructed area.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".