MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6979827090

Alarm calling, stress, and fitness in central versus peripheral territories of Richardson’s ground squirrels (Urocitellus richardsonii)

2018· dissertation· en· W6979827090 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPredationSurvivorship curvePredatorALARMOffspringWildlifeAlarm signalReproductive success
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Selfish herd theory predicts that as predators usually approach from the periphery of a group, survivorship and reproductive output of peripheral group members should be decreased. Non lethal encounters with predators may affect prey through the costs associated with increased activation of the hypothalamic pituitary-adrenal axis. Richardson’s ground squirrels (Urocitellus richardsonii) defend territories within their colonies and thus may experience differential fitness outcomes based on the location of their territory. I recorded U. richardsonii alarm vocalizations with Wildlife Acoustic SM3 audio recorders at centre and edge locations of a colony to estimate predation pressure and predator type (airborne vs. terrestrial), quantified faecal glucocorticoid metabolite (FGM) concentration as a measure of stress, and tracked offspring production and survivorship of females and their young for a year. The results obtained suggest that individuals occupying centre and edge areas experience different levels of predation pressure, but not FGM concentration, survival, or offspring production.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)Same topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207