MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Individual differences in the behavioural responses of meadow voles to an unfamiliar environment are not correlated with variation in resting metabolic rate

2011· article· en· W2153550223 on OpenAlexafffund
Mary E. Timonin, Chloé Carrière, A. D. Dudych, J. G. W. Latimer, S. T. Unruh, Craig K. R. Willis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
FundersRocky Mountain Research StationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyMicrotusBasal metabolic rateVariation (astronomy)EcologyLizardPopulationZoologyDemographyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resting metabolic rate (RMR) is highly variable between individuals within a single species and the relationship between body mass and RMR does not wholly explain this variability. One factor that could account for a portion of the residual variation is animal personality or consistent individual differences (CIDs) in behaviour, but no study has examined this relationship in a free-living population of mammals. In this paper, we test for a relationship between RMR and CIDs in activity in live-trapped meadow voles Microtus pennsylvanicus after controlling for the effect of body mass. We quantified the activity levels of voles both in an unfamiliar environment and for the first 2 min in the metabolic apparatus, and then measured RMR using open-flow respirometry. As expected, there was a linear relationship between RMR and body mass, and we found strong evidence for repeatable differences in activity levels between individuals. However, contrary to the hypothesis, we did not identify a significant correlation between CIDs in behaviour and RMR after controlling for body mass. Our results suggest that, at least within species, higher activity levels may not require a greater investment in energetically demanding tissues or increased capacity for processing of energy. Alternatively, if a relationship exists, our inability to detect it may reflect a weak behavioural signal in noisy RMR data that are influenced by many factors. Our results could also reflect an artefact of individual responses to stress or a sampling bias towards more exploratory individuals in animals captured by live-trapping.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.148 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207