Spread of false alarms in foraging flocks of house sparrows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In group‐foraging species with no alarm signals, the sudden departure of neighbours can be used to inform the rest of the group about the detection of a threat. However, sudden departures are ambiguous because they can be triggered by factors unrelated to predator detection. We evaluated how animals react to the sudden departure of neighbours in groups of foraging house sparrows ( Passer domesticus ). We focussed on false alarms that occurred for no apparent reasons to us because predation attempts were not frequent. Three factors can explain how the sudden departure of a neighbour can influence reaction times, namely group size, the distance between neighbours, and predation risk. We predicted reaction times to be longer in larger groups where individual vigilance levels are low, and when group members are further apart and cannot easily monitor each other. In addition, we expected reaction times to be longer when predation risk is lower. Departures that are more temporally clumped are also expected to be less ambiguous and should trigger faster reaction times. Our results show that sparrows reacted faster, not more slowly, to the sudden departures of neighbours in larger groups, and, as predicted, more slowly when neighbours were more distant from each other. Reaction times were longer in one of the two study years in which predation risk was deemed lower. Sparrows reacted more quickly when earlier departures were more temporally clumped. The results thus provided partial support for the predictions, and future work is needed to assess how individuals react to fleeing responses by their neighbours in species with no alarm signals.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".