MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Vision and the foraging technique of skimmers (Rynchopidae)

2007· article· en· W2138071093 on OpenAlexaff
Graham R. Martin, Raymond McNeil, Luz Marina Rojas

Bibliographic record

VenueIbis · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVisual perception and processing mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingComputer visionCommunicationBiologyArtificial intelligenceEcologyComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In birds, the position and extent of the region of binocular vision appears to be determined primarily by feeding ecology. Of prime importance is the degree to which vision is used for the precise control of bill position when foraging. Skimmers (Rynchops, Rynchopidae, Charadriiformes) exhibit a unique foraging behaviour and associated structural adaptations. When foraging they fly low and straight over water with the mouth open and the mandible partially submerged. Items that are hit by the lower mandible are grasped by a rapid reflex bill closure. It is believed that this unique ‘skimming’ foraging technique is guided by tactile rather than visual cues. It is predicted therefore that the visual fields of skimmers will have similar topography to those of other tactile feeding birds. We determined retinal visual fields in Black Skimmers Rynchops niger using an ophthalmoscopic reflex technique. Contrary to expectation the visual fields of Black Skimmers are not like those of other tactile feeders. They show high similarity with those of birds that feed by precision‐pecking. The projection of the bill tip when the mouth is closed and when open (as in skimming) falls within the frontal binocular field and there is an extensive blind area above and behind the head. We argue that this visual field topography functions to achieve accurate bill positioning with respect to the water surface when skimming and, because foraging skimmers cannot determine the identity of what they are seizing as they skim, to permit the visual identification of prey items held between the mandibles after they have been taken from the water surface. When skimming, only a small portion of the binocular field, approximately 5° wide and extending 5° above the horizontal, looks in the direction of travel. The small size of this forward‐facing region of binocularity in skimmers suggests that control of locomotion in birds does not necessarily require extensive binocularity in the direction of travel.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations48
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIbisSame topicVisual perception and processing mechanismsFrench-language works237,207