Risk factors affecting escape behavior by the desert iguana, <i>Dipsosaurus dorsalis</i>: speed and directness of predator approach, degree of cover, direction of turning by a predator, and temperature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Escape from predators by desert iguanas (Dipsosaurus dorsalis) conforms to predictions of optimal escape theory based on risk. I simulated an approaching predator to study risk factors. The primary response variable was approach distance (= flight-initiation distance), i.e., the distance between predator and prey when the prey initiates escape. In additional studies, I recorded whether lizards permitted me to approach close enough to noose them (an indicator of wariness) and the method of escape. Approach distance was greater when the predator approached rapidly than slowly and directly than indirectly, and when the predator turned toward the lizard rather than away. It was greater in open than in more densely covered habitats, which may reflect greater risk due to conspicuousness and (or) a greater distance to refuge. Early in the day at lower air temperatures, desert iguanas permitted a closer approach before initiating escape. While basking after emergence from burrows, lizards escaped into burrows; later in the day they fled. Lizards that fled had high body temperatures; a single individual captured immediately after entering a burrow had a lower body temperature. Lizards presumably enter burrows when low body temperature limits the running speed, but burrow use is costly because attainment of the activity temperature is delayed because of time elapsed and the temperature decrease in burrows.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".