Signaler and receiver boldness influence response to alarm calls in eastern chipmunks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using social information can benefit individuals in many ways. Responding to alarm signals can, for instance, maximize survival under predation risk. However, foraging individuals should consider the reliability of such risk-based information to balance antipredator behavior and resource acquisition. Receiver decisions could depend on personality effects, as individual variation in risk-taking tendencies (i.e., boldness) could not only affect receiver perception of the signaled threat but also signaler reliability. Recent theoretical models support the possibility of coevolution between personality and communication strategies. Using a playback experiment, we show that wild eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus) respond to alarm calls according to their own boldness level (measured as consistent individual differences in basal vigilance) and that they increase their vigilance response to bolder callers potentially considered as more reliable. Further, receivers respond to the callers’ boldness regardless of their own boldness and independently of their familiarity level with callers, therefore decoding this information from vocalizations. Such effects of individual behavioral variation on the perception and interpretation of social information could apply to signals used in a variety of ecological contexts.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".