Effects of feeding height and distance from protective cover on the foraging behavior of wintering birds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foraging behavior that balances feeding efficiency with predation risk avoidance may be selected for; thus, foraging animals may choose among sites and achieve various giving-up densities under different feeding conditions. We compared the frequency and duration of visits and the feeding efficiency of a mixed-species wintering bird flock among feeders set up at three heights within woods, at the edge between woods and dense shrub, and in open fields to investigate the feeding height preference of birds and its relationship to the extent of openness of the sites. Carolina chickadees (Parus carolinensis Audubon, 1834) and tufted titmice (Parus bicolor L., 1766) accounted for 96% of the total number of visits to feeders and 95.9% of the total time spent on feeders. Birds tended to visit higher feeders and feeders in the woods and at edge sites more frequently than they visited lower feeders and feeders in open fields. Birds also spent more time on higher feeders and feeders in the woods and at edge sites than on lower feeders and feeders in open fields. However, the feeding height preference changed over the course of observations, and different patterns were observed at different sites. In the woods and at the edge, bird visits shifted to the lower feeders earlier; in contrast, birds preferred higher feeders throughout the period of observation in open fields. Feeding efficiency was lower at open sites than in woods and at edge sites, but birds spent the least time per seed on low feeders at open sites. Seeds on higher feeders and in woods or at edge sites were removed faster. Regardless of the height and locality of feeders, birds preferred energy-rich oil-type seeds over energy-poor striped seeds.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".