MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2133506968 · doi:10.1139/z06-057

Habitat difference in food abundance possibly causes within-population variation in the timing of breeding in the Madagascar paradise flycatcher (<i>Terpsiphone mutata</i>)

2006· article· en· W2133506968 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tsutomu Mizuta

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyInsectivoreAbundance (ecology)EcologyPopulationHabitatZoologyFlycatcherDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within-population variation in the timing of breeding in the insectivorous Madagascar paradise flycatcher, Terpsiphone mutata (L., 1766), was investigated in a dry forest of northwestern Madagascar. The study area was divided into two sites (namely, A and B) based on the distance from the waterside. An examination was conducted to determine whether the date of egg laying varies between the two sites, and if it does vary, what are the environmental factors that affect the variation. The females started egg laying significantly earlier at site B than at site A. The two sites are located in a continuous forest; hence, photoperiod and precipitation would not differ between them. The number of insects was higher at site B than at site A. The difference in the temperature was not considered to be the cause of the variation in the date of egg laying. Age structure of the females was not likely to differ between the sites. Therefore, the variation in the date of egg laying is considered to be caused by the difference in food abundance that is associated with the relative distance from the waterside.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→