Dataset to accompany manuscript: "Investigating the motivations of repetitive barrier interactions in Pogona vitticeps"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considerable research has demonstrated that the effective management of repetitive behaviours such as bar-biting and pacing relies upon understanding their motivations; however, this same research has revealed that repetitive behaviours can have a diverse array of motivations. In reptiles, repetitive behaviours commonly manifest as persistent interactions with the barriers of the enclosure (hereafter IWB). It is typically assumed that IWB indicates a motivation to escape the enclosure, but this has not been investigated; consequently, this assumption is the hypothesis of this article. Two predictions followed from this: IWB should be biased towards known and visible escape routes and should be associated with other factors that may increase a lizards’ motivation to escape. We found that within their enclosures, lizards performed IWB for longer on the only known escape route. Furthermore, when this area was made partially opaque, IWB was biased towards the remaining transparent portion. However, the association of IWB with other factors was less clear. IWB was strongly associated with defecation, but the cause-and-effect of this relationship was unclear. In addition, IWB was not associated with feeding, although this may be related to the generally sedentary life histories of P. vitticeps. Finally, female lizards performed more IWB than males during the breeding season, but the opposite was predicted based on the movement patterns of wild P. vitticeps; this may reflect that IWB is related to the motivation to gain certain resources, but not necessarily to be active. In conclusion, there was evidence that IWB was related to a motivation to escape the enclosure, but as with other research, we found that IWB had diverse motivations that are linked to the animal’s life history.
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 | 0.001 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.308 | 0.056 |
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".