MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068760899 · doi:10.1676/10-137.1

Nocturnal Provisioning by Swainson's Thrush

2011· article· en· W2068760899 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey R. Ball, Katrina C. Lukianchuk, Erin M. Bayne

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Journal of Ornithology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Behavior and Reproduction
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersInnovative Research Group Project of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsDuskNocturnalEveningProvisioningDaylightThrushDemographyGeographyEcologyBiologyComputer sciencePhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied Swainson's Thrush (Catharus ustulatus) at two study areas of different latitudes to examine if parents provisioned their nestlings beyond daylight hours. We viewed 591 hrs of video from 37 nests. All nests were provisioned outside the dawn to dusk period but provisioning also continued through the night at the northern site. Night provisioners made an average (± SE) of 1.55 ± 0.18 fewer provisioning trips/hr during the pre-dawn to late evening periods compared to non-night provisioners. Night provisioners compensated with two additional trips/hr during the post-dusk period and 2.11 (95% CI: 1.61–2.77) trips/hr during the night period. Night provisioners did not experience improved reproductive success, which supports our conclusion that night provisioning was compensatory rather than ‘bonus’ energy. Nocturnal provisioning was best explained by increased day length, which corresponded to increased light levels during the night period that enabled parents to navigate and locate food. Swainson's Thrush extend a given provisioning effort over more hours as light levels permit rather than increasing energy delivery to their nestlings, which may provide time and energy for other activities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.607

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.180 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wilson Journal of OrnithologySame topicAnimal Behavior and ReproductionFrench-language works237,207