MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Repeatable measures of take‐off flight performance in auklets

2006· article· en· W2063855600 on OpenAlexafffund
Martin J. Renner

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDeutsche Ornithologen-Gesellschaft
KeywordsAccelerationBiologyTrajectoryAdaptation (eye)Digital videoMeasure (data warehouse)RepeatabilityStatisticsEcologyMathematicsPhysicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Rapid acceleration is the key to a successful escape manoeuvre and has attracted considerable research attention in a wide array of taxa. I recorded take‐offs of least auklets Aethia pusilla and crested auklets Aethia cristatella with digital video (60 frames per second). To smooth time–location data derived from video, I used predicted mean square error quintic splines, which have been shown to be good predictors of true acceleration. Repeated recordings of the same individual bird allowed me to measure repeatability of take‐off acceleration and velocity to find the most robust and biologically meaningful measure. The most repeatable take‐off parameters were power at time t =0.17 s after take‐off ( r =75%) and acceleration at t =0.17 s ( r =72%). The horizontal component of velocity at t =0.32 s was least affected by the slope of the take‐off trajectory. The mean acceleration of both species is close to expected values based on body mass, even though all previously studied species had considerably lower body mass. Within least auklets, however, I did not find a significant relationship of velocity or acceleration with mass. This would be expected if the observed drop in mass after hatching was an adaptation to reduce the risk of predation. I conclude that acceleration and exerted power at a certain time after take‐off is repeatable and the most suitable measure of performance for both inter‐ and intra‐specific comparisons.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations6
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ZoologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207