MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2070516828 · doi:10.1139/z06-089

Experimental analysis of novelty responses in a bird assemblage inhabiting a suburban marsh

2006· article· en· W2070516828 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alejandra Isabel Echeverría, Aldo Iván Vassallo, Juan Pablo Isacch

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAgencia Nacional de Promoción Científica y Tecnológica
KeywordsSparrowGeneralist and specialist speciesBiologyNeophobiaEcologyCowbirdAssemblage (archaeology)Context (archaeology)HabitatBrood parasiteZoologyParasitismHost (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Suburban areas in the Pampas region of Argentina are inhabited by several bird species that sharply differ in their ability to exploit human-modified, urban areas. This bird assemblage includes species restricted to natural grasslands (e.g., Great Pampa Finch, Embernagra platensis (J.F. Gmelin, 1789)) as well as generalist, highly cosmopolitan species such as House Sparrow, Passer domesticus (L., 1758). We explored the role of certain aversive responses to novelty in shaping the marked differences in ecological plasticity among species in the assemblage. In field experiments, we tested for differences in feeding in the presence of artificial objects near feeders regularly replenished with seeds. In spite of their granivorous diet, some non-urbanized species did not use the feeders, possibly because of an extreme degree of aversion to novel situations. The group of birds that visited the feeders included both urbanized (N = 8) and non-urbanized (N = 2) species. We found that the presence of novel objects discouraged visitation to an otherwise attractive food source, although neophobia was weak for most species. However, we found unexpectedly high levels of neophobia in highly generalist, urbanized species such as House Sparrow and Shiny Cowbird, Molothrus bonariensis (J.F. Gmelin, 1789). This response is discussed in the context of the influence of post-fledging development in a relatively simple and predictable ecosystem versus that in urban areas.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations30
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicPlant and animal studies→French-language works237,207→