The song remains the same: Juvenile Richardson’s ground squirrels do not respond differentially to mother’s or colony member’s alarm calls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Alarm calls are emitted by Richardson’s ground squirrels Urocitellus richardsonii in response to avian and terrestrial predators. Conspecifics detecting these calls respond with increased vigilance, promoting predator detection and evasion, but in doing so, lose time from foraging. That loss can be minimized if alarm call recipients discriminate among signalers, and weight their response accordingly. For juvenile ground squirrels, we predicted that the trade-off between foraging and vigilance could be optimized via selective response to alarm calls emitted by their own dam, and/or neighboring colony members over calls broadcast by less familiar conspecifics. Alarm calls of adult female Richardson’s ground squirrels were elicited in the field using a predator model and recorded on digital audio tape. Free-living focal juveniles were subjected to playbacks of a call of their mother, and on a separate occasion a call from either another adult female from their own colony, or an adult female from another colony. Neither immediate postural responses and escape behavior, nor the duration of vigilance manifested by juveniles differed with exposure to alarm calls of the three adult female signaler types. Thus, juveniles did not respond preferentially to alarm calls emitted by their mothers or colony members, likely reflecting the high cost of ignoring alarm signals where receivers have had limited opportunity to establish past signaler reliability.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".