MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1552638978 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v128i2.1578

Parental care by lone male Ferruginous Hawks (<em>Buteo regalis</em>), Rough-legged Hawks (<em>Buteo lagopus</em>), and Great Horned Owls (<em>Bubo virginianus</em>) was limited to providing food

2014· article· en· W1552638978 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Josef K. Schmutz, Martin A. Gérard, Gordon S. Court, R. Wayne Nelson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsAlberta Environment and Protected AreasUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsButeoLagopusBiologyZoologyPredationBeggingNest (protein structural motif)EcologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In three long-term studies of Ferruginous Hawks (Buteo regalis), Rough-legged Hawks (Buteo lagopus), and Great Horned Owls (Bubo virginianus), we observed rare but regular occurrences of superabundant prey at nests where nestlings were hungry, emaciated, or dead. In these cases, a male appeared to be the lone parent; the female parent was found dead, kept away by disturbances, or simply absent. We conclude that the male parents, whose normal role is to provide food, were unable to expand their care to include morseling, feeding, and brooding. Faced with the stress of incessant food begging by nestlings, the male parents responded by bringing more and more food to the nest, to the point where food spoiled while the young starved amid plenty. We provide and interpret detailed observations for 11 such cases and suggest several variables that would influence the nestlings’ chances of survival.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.206 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207