MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2811415807 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0199216

Intermediate frequency of aversive conditioning best restores wariness in habituated elk (Cervus canadensis)

2018· article· en· W2811415807 on OpenAlexafffund
Rob Found, Elsabé Louise Kloppers, Thomas E. Hurd, Colleen Cassady St. Clair

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta Innovates - Technology FuturesUniversity of AlbertaParks CanadaAlberta Conservation Association
KeywordsConditioningHabituationPredationClassical conditioningBiologyEcologyPsychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In protected areas around the world, wildlife habituate to humans and human infrastructure, potentially resulting in human-wildlife conflict, and leading to trophic disruptions through excess herbivory and disconnection of predators from prey. For large species that threaten human safety, wildlife managers sometimes attempt to reverse habituation with aversive conditioning. This technique associates people as a conditioned stimulus with a negative, unconditioned stimulus, such as pain or fright, to increase wariness and prevent the need for lethal wildlife management. Resistance to aversive conditioning by some habituated individuals often results in more frequent conditioning events by managers, but there are few studies of conditioning frequency with which to evaluate the usefulness of this management response. We evaluated the effect of conditioning frequency on the wariness of elk (Cervus canadensis) by subjecting marked individuals to predator-resembling chases by people over a period of three months. In that time, animals were subjected to conditioning a total of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 9 times which we analyzed as both an ordinal variable and a binary one divided into low (3-5) and high (6-9) conditioning frequencies. We measured wariness before, during, and after the conditioning period using flight response distances from an approaching researcher. During the conditioning period, overall wariness increased significantly for elk in both treatment groups, although the increase was significantly greater in individuals subjected to high conditioning frequencies. However in the post-conditioning period, wariness gains also declined most in the high-frequency group, equating to more rapid extinction of learned behaviour. Across all treatment frequencies, rapid changes in flight responses also characterized the individuals with the lowest wariness at the beginning of the study period, suggesting that individuals with greater behavioural flexibility are more likely to habituate to both people and their attempts to change wariness via aversive conditioning. Together, our results imply that aversive conditioning may be most effective at intermediate frequencies and that its utility might be further increased with proactive assessment of individual personalities in habituated wildlife.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207