Conspecific attraction during establishment of Least Flycatcher clusters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Some birds exhibit clustered breeding in which all-purpose territories are densely packed, leaving intervening but apparently suitable habitat unoccupied. Clustering could be ecologically driven by material resource patterns or socially driven by social or sexual benefits. Least Flycatchers (Empidonax minimus) breed in clusters in forests over much of North America. In 2003, we mapped all Least Flycatcher clusters along 18.7 km of secondary roads in central Ontario. In May 2004, we broadcast recorded territorial song in five areas not used by Least Flycatchers in 2003, but in the same study area. During settlement, we found Least Flycatchers in the established clusters, in three of five treatment sites, and in one nontreatment site. However, no pairs were noted at the treatment sites, and no males ultimately remained. One male did, however, defend a territory at a treatment site for 6 d. Despite limited success at attracting Least Flycatchers to new locations, manipulating settlement using social cues could be a useful management tool for some species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".