MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152696904 · doi:10.1002/wsb.365

Seed and feeder use by birds in the United States and Canada

2013· article· en· W2152696904 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David J. Horn, Stacey M. Johansen, Travis E. Wilcoxen

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant and animal studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKaytee Avian Foundation
KeywordsWildlifeBiologyWhite (mutation)SunflowerSunflower seedGeographyEcologyZoologyAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT More people feed birds and other wildlife than hunt and fish combined. Despite its popularity, many bird‐feeding traditions lack scientific data. We examined seed and feeder use by wild birds in the United States and Canada, and how seed use may change by season and geographic region. Between 2005 and 2008, 173 individuals from 38 states and 3 provinces in Canada made 20,077, 45‐minute observations at bird feeders, recording 106 species and 1,282,424 bird visits. Of the 10 seed types most commonly used in bird seed blends, 3 are most attractive to birds: black‐oil sunflower, medium sunflower chips, and white proso millet. Other seeds such as red milo are less attractive. Chickadees ( Poecile spp.), nuthatches ( Sitta spp.), and larger finches ( Carpodacus spp.) were most abundant at black‐oil sunflower, smaller finches ( Carduelis spp.) were most abundant at Nyjer® (Wild Bird Feeding Institute, Chicago, IL) and sunflower chips, and sparrows ( Spizella spp.) were most abundant at white proso millet. Bird‐feeding traditions have been widely reported in books, magazines, newspaper articles, and websites. These traditions are often conflicting and have not been verified empirically. Studies such as this can be used to develop scientifically based recommendations that can lead to a better bird‐feeding experience and that attract fewer species with known negative ecological consequences. © 2013 The Wildlife Society.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.356
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.168
Teacher spread0.153 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations23
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicPlant and animal studiesFrench-language works237,207