Besökarpåverkan hos lodjur (Lynx lynx) på djurpark
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zoo visitors can affect captive animals in a negative, neutral or positive way. To achieve great \nwelfare for the animals we need a better understanding of how visitors influence their behaviours. \nThe Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx) is not as studied as other Felidae and there is a lack of knowledge on \nhow to manage stereotypies, such as pacing. This study analysed the behaviours of three captive \nlynx: a mother and her two one year old cubs, regarding visitor effect. Their enclosure was divided \ninto three zones and the behaviours categorised into active and inactive behaviours. The study \nmonitored the lynxes over nine days with a focal observation on all three animals simultaneously, \nand the behaviours were registered with instantaneous sampling each minute during a total of 268 \nminutes. The lynxes spent most of their time laying down, walking and sleeping, and the mother \nspent a quarter of her time pacing. The results also indicate no difference in active or inactive \nbehaviours regarding visitor numbers. They spent most of their time in the zone furthest away from \nvisitors, but also more time in the zone closest to visitors when there were many people around the \nenclosure. The lynxes were also more visible with many visitors in sight. Their choosing for what \nzone to be in is most likely related to preference and what resources, like resting places, that exist \nthere. There also seemed to be individual differences in how the animals were affected by visitors, \nsince one of the cubs tended to stay further in the enclosure. Regarding the stereotypies, further \nresearch is needed to determine how to help lynxes and other Felidae to improve their welfare in a \ncaptive environment.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".