MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152363621 · doi:10.1093/beheco/arv014

Traplining in hummingbirds: flying short-distance sequences among several locations

2015· article· en· W2152363621 on OpenAlex
Maria C. Tello-Ramos, T. Andrew Hurly, Susan D. Healy

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 · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHummingbirdForagingBiologyZoologyPollinatorEcologyPollinationPollen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As for other pollinators, hummingbirds have been classified as trapliners, that is, foragers that repeat the order in which they will revisit several locations. Although the study of hummingbird foraging behavior is extensive, there has been no direct evidence for the repeatability of hummingbird traplines. Here, we show that male territorial rufous hummingbirds repeated the order in which they visited artificial flowers in an array, which we increased one by one from 2 to 5 flowers. Despite the large number of possible routes that the birds could have flown around the flower arrays, the birds flew only a very small subset of routes and those routes were most often the shortest distance routes around the flowers. To our knowledge, this is the first quantitative evidence that hummingbirds do develop traplines when foraging.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.125 · 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