Goats adjust their feeding behaviour to avoid the ingestion of different insect species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ungulates feed on plants that are often inhabited by insects. Goats (Capra hircus Linnaeus, 1758) can efficiently avoid the ingestion of setae-covered noxious, caterpillars while feeding, but it is unknown how they respond to non-toxic insects. We filmed and analysed the behavioural responses of goats to smooth, innocuous silkworms (Bombyx mori (Linnaeus, 1758)) while feeding. The goats successfully sorted the silkworms apart from the food despite their tendency to cling to the leaves. Although the goats exhibited behaviours similar to those displayed with noxious caterpillars, the frequency of the behaviours doubled and a new behaviour appeared. The goats detected silkworms using tactile stimulation, obtained by repeatedly touching the leaves with their muzzles. This behaviour enabled them to pick silkworm-free leaves (leaving 73% of silkworms behind). If the goats picked up leaves with a silkworm, then they shook it off. When shaking was unsuccessful, they employed a new behaviour, filtering, in which they physically blocked the silkworm with their lips while consuming the leaves. Silkworms that entered the mouths of goats (rare) were spat out. These findings demonstrate that ungulates are capable of adjusting their feeding behaviour to accurately detect and avoid the ingestion of different insect species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".