The glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus) spends little time and energy foraging on Kangaroo Island, South Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The endangered Kangaroo Island glossy black-cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus lathami halmaturinus) relies entirely on the seeds of the drooping sheoak (Allocasuarina verticillata) for food. The time budget of the glossy black-cockatoos and their foraging behaviour was recorded to provide an indication of whether their food supply was likely to be limiting. The foraging behaviour of non-breeding and breeding cockatoos was also compared to record the strategy they used to collect the additional energy needed to raise young. Glossy black-cockatoos spent a relatively small proportion of their time foraging, suggesting that the food supply was abundant in the habitats used for feeding. Non-breeding birds spent only 26% of their time feeding and breeding birds spent only 36% of their time feeding. The cockatoos spent 0.4% of their time flying, foraged in a mean of only five trees per day and harvested cones in no more than five bouts per tree. This shows that the cockatoos made few movements between drooping sheoaks and within the canopy of the sheoaks when foraging. When breeding, the cockatoos spent significantly more time per day foraging, cropped cones in significantly more bouts per tree and harvested significantly more cones per tree than non-breeding birds. This shows that breeding birds increased their energy intake without greatly increasing movement between trees. The small number of movements made by glossy black-cockatoos when foraging on Kangaroo Island reflects the abundance of food trees and may be a strategy to reduce the risk of predation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".