Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter deals with the gaits and activities of individual giraffe with the exception of reproductive behaviour (Chapter 9) and the huge topic of feeding (Chapter 3). Daytime activity patterns In the early 1970s, Barbara and Walter Leuthold (1978b) documented over 230 hours what 12 giraffe did each day at different times of the year in Tsavo East National Park (their nightly activities remaining even yet a mystery). Their subjects were seven adult males, one subadult male and four adult females whose main preoccupation was usually food. The males spent from 15% to 49% of their time feeding, compared to 25–70% for the females. The males, who had more time on their hands, often necked or sparred in the mornings, as they had done also at Fleur de Lys ranch in South Africa (Innis, 1958). If giraffe chose to lie down at midday, they did so more often in large than in small groups, perhaps for security. If a male were after a female in oestrus, their feeding time, greatly reduced, was replaced by sexual activities. When giraffe weren’t feeding, they were often ruminating, looking blandly about as they did so.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.079 | 0.031 |
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".