Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Variation in foraging success in relation to spatial position in a group is little known in species that feed on mobile prey that can hide or flee upon disturbance by foragers. I examined the foraging success of individuals located either at the edge or at the centre of flocks of semipalmated sandpipers (Calidris pusilla) feeding on a burrowing amphipod (Corophium volutator) during migration stopover in the Bay of Fundy, Canada. The rates of pecking, prey capture and success were lower for individuals foraging at the edge than at the centre of flocks. Edge birds spent more time running and more time flying than centre birds. Edge birds moved away from the centre of the flock and made frequent short flights towards the centre. In contrast, centre birds rarely moved in a specific direction and flew mostly to relocate elsewhere with the whole flock. Sandpiper flocks foraged over a large area in a relatively short amount of time. In addition, amphipod density is high in this habitat. It thus appears unlikely that prey depletion or low food availability at the edges of groups could explain the spatial variation in foraging success. Low foraging success at the edges of flocks thus arose mainly because of time costs related to flock expansion and retraction. The effect of mutual interference among foragers and of predation risk by falcons is discussed with respect to flock expansion and retraction.
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) | 0.002 | 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".