Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dispersal distances determine the scales over which many population processes occur. Knowledge of these distances may therefore be crucial in determining the appropriate spatial scales for research and management. However, dispersal distances are difficult to measure, especially for vagile organisms like songbirds. For these species, the use of traditional mark–recapture and radio‐telemetry methods is problematic. We used positive one‐year time‐lagged correlations in abundance to estimate natal dispersal distances. Using the North American Breeding Bird Survey database, we examined one‐year time‐lagged correlations between pairs of North American songbird samples separated by 10–100 km. We submit that consistent positive one‐year time‐lagged correlations reflect the exchange of individuals through dispersal. We found positive one‐year time‐lagged correlations between pairs of samples from 25 different songbird species. The median distances of these correlations ranged from 15 to 95 km, depending on the species. These distances were positively correlated with body size and wing length. Dispersal appears to be the most parsimonious explanation for the time‐lagged correlations we observed in these species. The putative dispersal distances we measured are generally an order of magnitude longer than those reported in the literature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".