MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2006014120 · doi:10.2174/1874453201003010101

Rare Feeding Behavior of Great-Tailed Grackles (Quiscalus mexicanus) in the Extreme Habitat of Death Valley~!2010-01-08~!2010-03-08~!2010-05-21~!

2010· article· en· W2006014120 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stefanie Grabrucker, Andreas M. Grabrucker

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open Ornithology Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitatEcologyGeographyRange (aeronautics)FisheryBiologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the twentieth century, the Great-tailed Grackle (Quiscalus mexicanus) underwent a rapid and largescale range expansion, extending its northern limits from Texas in 1900 to 21 states in the US and 3 Canadian provinces by the end of the century.This explosive growth correlated with human-induced habitat changes.To investigate adaptations that might explain their expansion into even extreme habitats, a small number of Great-tailed Grackles were observed in Death Valley, CA.We noticed that these birds displayed a rare feeding behavior, i.e. picking dead insects from the license plates of parked vehicles.All birds used the same technique in obtaining the food and the behavior was displayed by both males and females.It was estimated that this food resource has a major contribution to the daily food intake.No other bird species sharing the same habitat showed this behavior although American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) had the possibility to watch the Great-tailed Grackles behavior.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations12
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open Ornithology Journal→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→