MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4394866141 · doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2024.03.015

Paying attention to attention: intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting vigilance bout and stare durations in bighorn sheep

2024· article· en· W4394866141 on OpenAlexaff
Clarice Maxwell, Vincent A. Viblanc, Petra L. McDougall, Peter Neuhaus, Nigel Caulkett, Kathreen E. Ruckstuhl

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Behaviour · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVigilance (psychology)PerceptionPredationOvis canadensisPsychologyBiologyDemographyEcologyCognitive psychologyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The process of organizing and interpreting sensory information, known as perceptual processing, is a key feature of adaptation allowing animals to integrate, assess and cope with challenges in their environments. Here, we examined the durations of vigilance bouts and stares in bighorn sheep, Ovis canadensis , as an indicator of time spent vigilant and perceptual processing, respectively. We tested the extent to which vigilance was shaped by relevant ecological factors, focusing on predation risk. Specifically, we tested whether stare duration increased when sheep were younger, part of smaller groups, further from others, further from escape terrain or closer to obstructive cover, all of which are expected to affect individual predation risk. Perceptual processing in bighorn sheep conformed to the 1–4 s perceptual window found in other mammals, consistent with the idea of a phylogenetically conserved mechanism across mammalian species but was variable within individuals, indicating that perceptual processing is plastic to relevant ecological contexts. As expected, stare duration was much shorter than vigilance bout duration. Stare duration increased with decreasing distance to obstructive cover, which could indicate perceptual processing costs of searching for cryptic predators. We also found a significant difference in vigilance bout duration between the sexes: age was positively correlated with vigilance bout duration in males but not in females. Vigilance bout durations were longer when animals were further from escape terrain. Neither group size nor distance to other individuals was associated with stare or bout durations. • We examined vigilance bouts and stares (perceptual processing) in bighorn sheep. • Vigilance bout duration was highly repeatable; stare duration was more variable. • Vigilance bouts were affected by age, sex and distance to escape terrain. • Stare duration was only affected by distance to obstructive cover. • Male, but not female, bighorn sheep increased vigilance bout duration with age.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.357
Threshold uncertainty score0.305

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal BehaviourSame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207