Preroosting behaviour of hooded crows (<i>Corvus corone cornix</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gatherings of birds at preroosts before departure to nocturnal roosts have rarely been studied and their function is poorly understood. We recorded preroosting behaviour of hooded crows, Corvus corone cornix, in a mixed farmland-forest landscape in southeastern Norway during fall and winter, by selecting gatherings attended by at least one radio-tagged crow for observation. The preroosting crows perched in a highly aggregated and exposed group and did not forage. As the amount of snowfall during the preceding 24 h increased, an indication of sudden difficulty in finding food, the maximum number of crows that gathered increased, the duration of the gathering increased, and the straight-line distance covered by the radio-tagged crows from preroost to roost increased. The crows flew conspicuously in formation more often and for a longer time when on their way from preroost to roost on days with stronger winds. The results suggest that, in hooded crows, a preroost gathering is not simply a consequence of many individuals approaching the same roosting area but has some function, presumably that of maximizing the probability of finding rewarding food sites the next day by finding is a communal roost where information on the location of these sites may be obtained.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".