MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169283199 · doi:10.1670/07-277r4.1

Ethogram of Sacalia quadriocellata (Reptilia: Testudines: Geoemydidae) in Captivity

2009· article· en· W2169283199 on OpenAlexaff
Yuxiang Liu, Jie Wang, Haitao Shi, Robert W. Murphy, Meiling Hong, Bin He, Jonathan J. Fong, Jichao Wang, Lirong Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Herpetology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsRoyal Ontario Museum
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthogramCaptivityBiologyCourtshipZoologyCourtship displayEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To construct an ethogram of Sacalia quadriocellata and introduce coding system into chelonian behavior research for quantitative comparison, 15 captive S. quadriocellata (eight females and seven males) were observed for one year using a digital surveillance system, and an ethogram constructed. Fourteen types of states and 84 types of events were recorded. Seventy-five behaviors were defined and described, and these were classified into eight categories of behavior: Feeding, Elimination, Conflict, Alert, Rest, Locomotion, Courtship, and Other. Feeding, Elimination, and Locomotion are frequent behaviors, whereas Conflict and Other behaviors are seldom observed. Mainly, this may be caused by environmental conditions that eliminate these plastic behaviors (e.g., Conflict and Other behaviors) and keep the nonplastic behaviors (e.g., Feeding, Elimination, and Locomotion). Finally, the comparison between S. quadriocellata and other chelonian species indicate that the behavioral patterns are similar on the whole, but the Conflict behaviors of S. quadriocellata are milder than other species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HerpetologySame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207