Individual Antipredator Responses Are Positively Correlated Across Cue Types in Free‐Living Black‐Capped Chickadees ( <scp> <i>Poecile atricapillus</i> </scp> )
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Prey animals must accurately assess predation risk within their environment. To gather information about this risk, prey animals may personally sample the environment (“personal information”) or observe the behavior of congeners (“social information”). Personal information is thought to be more accurate and reliable but may also require more time and energy to acquire. On the other hand, social information, such as alarm calls, tends to be less costly to obtain but may also be less reliable if congeners assess risk differently from one another, or if the information quickly becomes outdated. Theoretical models predict that individuals will differ in how they value personal versus social information. We used previously collected data from a marked population of black‐capped chickadees ( Poecile atricapillus ) to test this prediction. Chickadees were exposed to three different predator cue types: a predator mount (personal information), conspecific mobbing calls (social information), and a combination of both (personal + social information) near feeders established on their territory. We recorded the time it took a chickadee to visit a feeder following cue exposure (i.e., latency to resume feeding) to evaluate individual differences in response to predator cues. Contrary to our prediction, we found no evidence that individuals differed in how they valued personal versus social information about predation risk. Instead, our results suggest that responses to predator cues are state‐dependent, with some individuals consistently responding more strongly than others, regardless of cue type. We also found that when chickadees were exposed to a combination of social and personal predator cues, they exhibited higher among‐individual variation in latency to resume feeding than when they were exposed to social or personal cues alone. We discuss how individual differences in cue integration (i.e., cue redundancy/equivalence, enhancement, and antagonism) may account for this finding.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".