MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145660323 · doi:10.3354/esr00577

Influence of anthropogenic features and traffic disturbance on burrowing owl diurnal roosting behavior

2014· article· en· W2145660323 on OpenAlexaff
Corey A. Scobie, Erin M. Bayne, Troy I. Wellicome

Bibliographic record

VenueEndangered Species Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationDisturbance (geology)WildlifeGeographyEcologyEndangered speciesResource (disambiguation)DaytimeEnvironmental scienceHabitatBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Birds that forage nocturnally should select daytime roosts that minimize predation risk to themselves, maximize their ability to warn mates or young about predators, and reduce their exposure to inclement weather. The objective of this study was to identify landscape features used by burrowing owls Athene cunicularia hypugaea during the day and to determine if traffic disturbance altered patterns of daytime space use. We tracked 17 adult male owls for 0.6 to 2.8 d each with GPS dataloggers and used resource utilization and resource selection functions to examine the response of each owl to nest burrows, perches, and roads. Selection for roads decreased as average vehicle speed increased. Roads with vehicle speeds > 80 km h -1 were avoided. Owls may avoid roads with high traffic speeds because auditory disturbance from passing vehicles interferes with their ability to communicate the presence of predators to their mates and young. Owls also spent more time near fences and posts, likely because these elevated perches are good vantage points for predator detection. Perches near burrowing owl nests should be maintained, and speed limits on roads near burrowing owl nests should be set to < 80 km h -1 to help ensure owls are able to effectively detect and react to predators.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations27
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEndangered Species ResearchSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207