The Response of LLamas ( Lama Glama ) to Familiar and Unfamilar Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study explored the response of llamas to familiar and unfamiliar humans under housing and management conditions typical of both zoological gardens and llama farms. A group of five adult llamas was exposed to three 30-min socialization sessions with one female handler, who offered food and tactile contact. Subjects were then tested for their responses to the familiar handler (A)versus a stranger (B) in an Aj-B-Aj design. Proximity to the handler, sampled at 5-sec intervals through the 1-min test exposures, was used as a dependent variable. For both the A,-B and B-A^ comparisons, the number of animals present in the test area was significantly lower in the presence of the unfamiliar human (p < 0.001; 2-tailed Randomization Test). This finding has important implications for llama housing and management, where individual humans may serve as discrete conditioned or discriminative stimuli if repeatedly paired with hedonic events. Such human-based itioningmay affect animal behavior, physiology, and motivation. Interactions with humans may thus potentially confound experimental results in a research environment, or be used to facilitate eanagement or training.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".