Social information used to elicit cache protection differs between pinyon jays and Clark’s nutcrackers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Behavioral plasticity can be described as the ability to adjust behavior depending on environmental information. We used a food-storing (caching) paradigm, during which individuals either ate or cached food under different conditions, to investigate whether they could adjust their caching behavior when observed by conspecifics and heterospecifics, and which cues they used to elicit these behavioral changes. We examined the location and number of caches made by two corvid species differing in sociality, highly social pinyon jays ( Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus ) and less social Clark’s nutcrackers ( Nucifraga columbiana ). Although pinyon jays cached a similar amount of food across conditions, they allocated more caches to areas less accessible to the observer. Nutcrackers, however, reduced the number of seeds cached when another nutcracker was present in comparison to when they cached alone. Both species relied on different social cues to elicit re-caching: pinyon jays responded to the amount of time the observer spent close to the caching locations, whereas nutcrackers responded to the amount of time the observer spent pilfering their caches. The differences in cache protection behaviors and the social cues eliciting them may be explained by the species’ social organization. Pinyon jays may only adjust their caching behavior when necessary, as they are often surrounded by other individuals. Clark’s nutcrackers reduce their caching when observed, as they have more opportunities to cache alone, and may resort to additional cache protection when experiencing pilferage. Overall, our results provide insight into understanding how pressures associated with the social environment may influence foraging behaviors.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".