MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1844834669 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v117i4.831

Supposed Periodicity of Redpoll, <em>Carduelis</em> sp., Winter Visitations in Atlantic Canada

2003· article· en· W1844834669 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Anthony J. Erskine, Reid McManus

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsSackville Memorial Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNova scotiaGeographyContext (archaeology)Abundance (ecology)Range (aeronautics)EcologyBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Redpoll (primarily Carduelis flammea) data from the New Brunswick–Nova Scotia border region were reviewed in the context of alleged biennial periodicity of irruptions south of their breeding range. Long-term records by the authors suggested a number of departures from visitation in alternate years. Three local Christmas Bird Counts (CBCs) spanning the last 41 winters supported the less-than-regular pattern shown by individual observations. CBC redpoll data from across the Atlantic Provinces revealed annual redpoll visitations across southern New Brunswick, where the largest regional counts (adjusted for observer effort) usually occurred. Visitation to Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland was less frequent, and patterns there were often obscured by scarcity of CBCs with both long-run coverage and redpolls. Examination of those data in relation to varying food availability suggested that irregular abundance but near-annual occurrence of redpoll visitation explains observed observations better than attempts to find periodicity in their irruptions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.184
Threshold uncertainty score0.370

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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