MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2008695233 · doi:10.1139/z02-014

Energetic consequences of sex-related habitat segregation in wintering American kestrels (<i>Falco sparverius</i>)

2002· article· en· W2008695233 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel R. Ardia

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRocky Mountain Research Station
KeywordsKestrelEnergeticsHabitatBiologyDominance (genetics)EcologySex ratioDemographyZoologyPredationPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Behavioural dominance can cause individuals to use less-preferred habitats, with potentially important life-history consequences. In the American kestrel, Falco sparverius, females exclude males from preferred open areas; I hypothesized that this sex-related habitat segregation leads to energetic consequences for males. I predicted that males would show decreased body condition over winter, while females would not, and that females would maintain larger net-energy surpluses than would males. Working in southeastern Pennsylvania, between 1991 and 1995, I conducted 150 behavioural observations and measured body condition of 235 wintering kestrels. Male kestrels maintained a lower body condition (residuals of a regression of mass vs. size) than did females and showed a decrease in mean body condition over winter, which females did not. I estimated that females had larger daily energy expenditures than did males (248 vs. 195 kJ per bird per day, ratio 1.27) but also had larger daily energy intakes (537 vs. 322 kJ/day, ratio 1.67). Females had larger net energy surpluses than did males (288 vs. 126 kJ/day, ratio 2.27), particularly when temperatures were <0°C. I conclude that differences in energetics are due in part to habitat differences and that males may suffer consequences by being forced to use less-preferred habitats.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction→French-language works237,207→