Paying attention to attention: intrinsic and extrinsic factors affecting vigilance bout and stare durations in bighorn sheep
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".