Bibliographic record
Abstract
Where there is seasonal disparity among opportunities, the season with those in shortest supply is most likely to limit populations. Among migrant birds that travel between different breeding and winter ranges, any of breeding, migratory or winter conditions could exclusively constitute such population‐limiting factors. In both the New and Old Worlds, landmass is disproportionately concentrated in temperate latitudes. In the Americas, most passerine bird species that breed in the USA and Canada spend the winter further south, commonly in parts of the tropics where landmass is significantly less. Using a sample of 89 migratory species (eight passerine families) that breed in eastern North America, I considered patterns of geographic breeding range size, winter range size and winter distribution. Winter range size is usually smaller than breeding range size (84 of 89 species), often substantially so (minimum 8%, mean 52%). Wintering latitude explains significant variation in both breeding range size and winter range size, as well as in winter range size relative to breeding range size. In particular, all three measures vary latitudinally in patterns similar to latitudinal variation in landmass. These patterns collectively suggest that the reduction in landmass in the latitudes of Central America and the Caribbean is a limiting factor for migrant bird populations, adding to other research concluding that winter conditions sometimes prevail over breeding conditions in the limitation of populations. Hectare for hectare, habitat destruction in the tropics is likely to have the greater impact on the welfare of passerine populations breeding in North America.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".