Assessing anti-predator decisions of foraging eastern chipmunks under varying perceived risks: the effects of physical and social environments on vigilance
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals foraging under risk have to trade-off resource acquisition and predator avoidance. Environmental factors can modulate the level of risk and should thus influence the expression of anti-predator behaviours such as vigilance. In this study, we investigated the effects of physical and social environments on eastern chipmunks’ ( Tamias striatus ) vigilance, by varying the perceived risk through playback experiments of alarm calls and neutral environmental sounds, and by integrating habitat and weather characteristics, as well as neighbour density. Chipmunks showed higher levels of vigilance when foraging in more open habitats, under high wind conditions, when they heard alarm calls and when surrounded by a high neighbour density. The effects of wind intensity and neighbour density on vigilance were also stronger during the broadcast of alarm calls rather than neutral sounds. Our results emphasize how both the physical and social environments can modify risk perception and therefore risk-taking decisions of foraging individuals.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it