MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118588678 · doi:10.1093/beheco/arp146

Predator escape tactics in birds: linking ecology and aerodynamics

2009· article· en· W2118588678 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBehavioral Ecology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationForagingBiologyPredatorEcologyWingEscape responseWing loadingPectoral muscleVulnerability (computing)AerodynamicsZoologyAnatomyAngle of attackAerospace engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most birds, flight is the most important means of escape from predators. Impaired flight abilities due to increased wing loading may increase vulnerability to predation. To compensate for an increase in wing loading, birds are able to independently decrease body mass (BM) or increase pectoral muscle mass (PMM). Comparing nearshore and farshore foraging shorebird species, we develop a theory as to which of these responses should be the most appropriate. We hypothesize that nearshore foragers should respond to increased predation by increasing their PMM in order to promote speed-based escape. Instead, farshore foragers should decrease BM in order to improve agility for maneuvering escape. Experiments on 2 shorebird species are consistent with these predictions, but on the basis of the theoretical framework for evaluating effect size and biological significance developed here, more experiments are clearly needed.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.254 · 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