MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169405239 · doi:10.1139/z09-089

Flight initiation distance is differentially sensitive to the costs of staying and leaving food patches in a small-mammal prey

2009· article· en· W2169405239 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patricio A. Lagos, Andrea Meier, Liliana Ortiz Tolhuysen, Rodrigo A. Castro, Francisco Bozinovic, Luis A. Ebensperger

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y Tecnológico
KeywordsBurrowPredationForagingBiologyMammalOptimal foraging theoryEcologyPredatorAbundance (ecology)Zoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Escape theory predicts that a prey should flee from an approaching predator at a point in which the cost of staying equals the cost of escape. We manipulated the cost of fleeing upon approaching human predators by providing the small mammal Octodon degus (Molina, 1782) with varying amounts of supplementary food likely to disappear while the animals are not in the food patch (e.g., hidden in their burrows). Simultaneously, we manipulated the risk of remaining in the patch by providing supplementary food at varying distances from the nearest burrow. Degus fled at a shorter distance to approaching predators when foraging in patches closer to the nearest burrow and supplied with relatively high abundance of food, but only when these rodents were foraging socially. Also, degus fled at a greater distance to approaching predators when foraging in patches far from the nearest burrow. Thus, functions linked to the loss of feeding opportunities and the risk of predation interact to influence flight initiation distance after a simulated attack. This study represented one of the few demonstrations of an interactive effect between cost and risks on antipredator behavior in a small, social prey mammal.

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)0.000
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 score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.768

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations48
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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