Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flight speeds of seven bird species were recorded using a hand-held Doppler radar for adult birds flying to and from foraging areas while rearing chicks. R.A. Norberg (1981. J. Anim. Ecol. 50: 473–477) predicted that birds rearing chicks should fly at speeds greater than the maximum range speed to bring the most food to their chicks as long as the associated increase in travel costs can be more than compensated for by foraging in the travel time saved. From aerodynamic and total power curves based on a range of literature values for the drag coefficient (0.05–0.4), the minimum power speed (minimum point on the U-shaped curve), and maximum range speed (a tangent to the curve from the origin at which the distance traveled per unit energy is maximized) are compared with the mean measured flight speed for each species. For all species, the mean measured flight speed was significantly less than the maximum range speed (p < 0.05), which is independent of foraging style and habitats, suggesting that flying at speeds greater than the maximum range speed may not be a practical strategy for birds rearing chicks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".