MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1990733141 · doi:10.1139/z03-197

Effects of artificial perches and interspecific interactions on patch use by wintering raptors

2003· article· en· W1990733141 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel H. Kim, Felipe Chávez-Ramírez, R. Douglas Slack

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerchKestrelAccipitridaeInterspecific competitionEcologyPredationBiologyVegetation (pathology)FisheryFish <Actinopterygii>

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used an experimental approach to investigate the effects of woody vegetation and interspecific interactions on patch use by three wintering raptor species in the coastal prairie in south Texas. We manipulated perch type and density by the addition of artificial perches to patches of coastal prairie grasslands, varying perch height in the first year and canopy density in the second year. American Kestrels (Falco sparverius) used areas with artificial perches more often than they used natural woody vegetation and areas without woody perches. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) patch use did not vary with treatment type. Loggerhead Shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus) used areas of natural woody vegetation more than patches with artificial perches and patches with no perches. Patch use by Loggerhead Shrikes was also influenced by the presence of complex woody vegetation and interspecific interactions, whereas American Kestrel use was limited by landscape matrix and ground cover density. We believe that predation by Northern Harriers limited Loggerhead Shrikes to patches with escape cover, while competition from American Kestrels prevented Loggerhead Shrikes from concurrent patch use.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations15
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→