MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Simple and inexpensive devices to measure heart rates of incubating birds

2011· article· en· W1957999433 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jennifer M. Arnold, Rafael Ordoñez, David A. Copeland, Rungun Nathan, Joshua M. Scornavacchi, Donald J. Tyerman, Stephen A. Oswald

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Field Ornithology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsParks Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBluetoothSternaHeart rateLaptopTernNest (protein structural motif)BiologyComputer scienceEcologyFisheryWirelessTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Heart rate is a useful physiological index for studies of stress, locomotion, and activity patterns. Measuring heart rates of birds without the need to handle individuals is desirable when trapping is problematic or may cause unwanted disturbance. Heart-rate recorders housed in dummy eggs offer an effective solution, but the usefulness of previously described devices is limited by their size, complex construction, and reliance on analog media. We constructed egg-based, heart-rate monitors through simple modifications of inexpensive, commercially available MP3 players and Bluetooth headsets. We compared the merits of each device during tests in the laboratory, an aviary, and the field in 2008. Field testing was undertaken at Presqu’ile Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada, where we recorded heart rates of Common Terns (Sterna hirundo), Caspian Terns (Hydroprogne caspia), and Ring-billed Gulls (Larus delawarensis). Birds incubated dummy eggs normally, with no differences in behavior (all P > 0.05) when incubating either wired (MP3 players) or wireless (Bluetooth) devices. MP3 devices were more reliable in the field. Bluetooth devices often lost pairing with laptop computers (33% of files analyzed contained no signal), produced files with more obscuring noise, and only two could be deployed simultaneously with a single computer; there was no limit on how many MP3 devices could be deployed simultaneously. Common Terns, the smallest of our three focal species, had significantly higher (P < 0.001) mean heart rates (268.6 ± 9.3 beats per min [bpm]) than either Ring-billed Gulls (198.0 ± 7.1 bpm) or Caspian Terns (204.2 ± 8.0 bpm). Heart rates of all three species were consistent with those reported or predicted from previous studies. The MP3 devices we describe provide investigators with a simple, inexpensive, and minimally invasive way to digitally record heart rates of birds of almost any size.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Field OrnithologySame topicBird parasitology and diseasesFrench-language works237,207