Size and Composition of Foraging Flights in Two Species of Piscivorous Colonial Birds: Limited Evidence for Intra- or Interspecific Information Transfer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Colonial birds must derive benefits from living in conspecific groups and with other species.One possible benefit is that they follow previously successful individuals to foraging sites (information center hypothesis).To test for evidence of intra-and interspecific information transfer, we assessed the group size and composition of flights of doublecrested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) and American white pelicans (Pelecanus erythrorhynchos) at two mixed colonies.Flights by solo individuals were the most common outbound type, suggesting that the birds do not immediately follow others.However, the majority of the total number of outbound birds traveled in groups.In comparison, groups inbound to colonies and flying between feeding locations were large.Regardless of flight direction, groups were almost always largest during the late chick-rearing period.This suggests that groups may have some function, although likely not to share information about foraging-sites.Mixed-species groups in general were rare, so it is unlikely that these birds commonly locate prey by following other species in flight.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".