An animal geography of avian feeding habits in Peterborough, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal geography, emphasising jointly ‘actant’ behaviour of animals and people, encourages an innovative rethink of animal ecology, including animal strategies, hopes and fears in foraging, in a co‐dependent framework with human behaviour. This paper studies bird–human reactions and feeding interactions in Peterborough, Ontario. It uses ecological survey methods, and also relies on alternative sources, including unique bird behaviours and ‘strategies’, intra‐species differences and human emotions, preferences and feeding strategies. Feeders’ presence attracted birds to non‐habitat areas, altering the ecology of avian presence and foraging, and preferential feeding created serious, previously non‐existent, inter‐species conflicts and inventive, usually successful reactions from birds. There were inter‐species, and in some cases intra‐species, hierarchies of dominance, based on possible avian decisionmaking co‐dependent with the human behaviours in the continually recreated and inflected spaces. This possibly anthropomorphic perspective of bird behaviour moves beyond established theories of adaptation and the relation of human–bird behavioural interactions to bird ecology.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".