MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171846723 · doi:10.1139/z06-018

Risk factors affecting escape behaviour by Puerto Rican<i>Anolis</i>lizards

2006· article· en· W2171846723 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
W. E. Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArboreal locomotionAnolisPerchBiologyPredationLizardEcologySquamataRange (aeronautics)ZoologyFisheryHabitatFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Approach distance (flight initiation distance) and escape methods depend on predation risk. I studied escape methods and effects of risk factors (temperature, perch height and orientation, conspicuousness) on approach distance in seven Puerto Rican anoles. Approach distance increased as temperature decreased in Anolis gundlachi Peters, 1876, presumably because of decreasing running speed, but not in other species (probably because of narrow temperature range). Perch height and approach distance varied inversely in four arboreal species that escape upward, positively in two grass–bush species that are more conspicuous when higher and flee downward, and were unrelated in cryptic Anolis stratulus Cope, 1861. Approach distance was shortest in cryptic A. stratulus and shorter intraspecifically in three species for partially concealed lizards and at sites providing more cover in two species. Approach distance was shorter for A. gundlachi on vertical than nonvertical perches, suggesting that ease of escape upward affects assessed risk. Escape behaviours have been proposed to vary among anole ecomorphs. Grass–bush species fled downward as proposed, or horizontally near ground level. Contrary to predictions of escape downward by trunk–ground and upward by trunk–crown anoles, all arboreal species escaped upward. Only trunk anoles were proposed to use squirreling, but species from four ecomorphs did as well.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.192
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.

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

Citations43
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207