MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1895713439 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v122i3.603

Pileated Woodpeckers, <em>Dryocopus pileatus</em>, Foraging in Suburban Habitats in New Brunswick

2008· article· en· W1895713439 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Anthony J. Erskine

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsSackville Memorial Hospital
FundersSociety of Canadian Ornithologists
KeywordsWoodpeckerWoodlandExcavationGeographyFellingArchaeologyHabitatEcologyPredationForestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pileated Woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus), usually woodland birds, were seen often in Sackville, New Brunswick, in winters 2005-2007. Excavations in trees were made mostly by two female birds. A male bird joined each female briefly in late winter. These birds probably all roosted in wooded areas west of town. Most large trees in town are broad-leafed, in contrast to the mostly conifer woods to the west (there are only open lands to the east). Feeding excavations in town were mostly in maples, with little use of elms. Prey noted were large larvae, seemingly of sawflies, unlike published reports of Pileated Woodpecker feeding mainly on adult ants and beetles. Excavations further weakened trees already damaged by boring insects, causing perceived risks to passers-by and to overhead wires. Work by woodpeckers alerted arborists to weakened trees or branches, many of which were removed. Local people were excited at seeing, close up, these impressive – and tame – birds.

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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations3
Published2008
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207