MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102094292 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v119i4.181

Plumage and Internal Morphology of the "Prairie Grouse", <em>Tympanuchus cupido</em> × <em>phasianellus</em>, of Manitoulin Island, Ontario

2005· article· en· W2102094292 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Harry G Lumsden

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersWisconsin Department of Natural ResourcesMinistry of Natural ResourcesYale University
KeywordsPlumageGrouseLek matingHybridBiologyGalliformesFeatherRange (aeronautics)ZoologyGeographyEcologyMatingBotanyMate choiceHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I made comparisons among populations of Greater Prairie-Chickens, Sharp-tailed Grouse and their hybrids on Manitoulin Island of pinnae length, breast, flank and tail feather patterns, tail graduations, wing chord, and skeletal characteristics. Estimates of the proportion of hybrids from these individual characters ranged from 32% to 60%. Lek behaviour of hybrids was a mixture of the patterns of the parent species. The colour of the booming sacks varied and displayed the range between the parent species. There was a tendency with time for the characters of Prairie Chickens to decline coincident with an increase in Sharptailed Grouse characters. Both Prairie Chickens and Sharp-tailed Grouse are lek species in which an alpha male may consummate most of the the matings. The speed with which morphological change took place in Manitoulin Island is to be expected where a non-random mating system of this kind prevails.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207