Evidence of altitudinal moult-migration in a Central American hummingbird,<i>Amazilia cyanura</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For birds, moulting is an energetically costly endeavour (Murphy & King 1991), the timing and location of which may be flexible and governed by local ecological factors (Pyleet al. 2009, Rohweret al. 2005). Some species or individuals may pause during long-distance migration, or migrate specifically to moult (Greenberget al. 1974, Pyleet al. 2009, Rohweret al. 2005, 2008). This strategy may be most common when food abundance reaches a nadir at the end of the breeding period, promoting movement to areas where food is more plentiful and the energetic and nutritive demands of moult may be met more suitably (Rohweret al. 2005). This pattern is exemplified by insectivorous songbirds breeding in temperate, western North America that pause on southward migration to moult amidst the food flush that occurs following heavy rains in the Mexican monsoon region (Pyleet al. 2009, Rohweret al. 2005, 2009), or more rarely, migrate upslope after breeding to moult in more moist, productive areas at higher elevation (Butleret al. 2002, Greenberget al. 1974, Rohweret al. 2008, Steele & McCormick 1995). Such altitudinal migration may be much more common in the Neotropics where many species engage in seasonal shifts in elevation. Hypotheses proposed to explain this behaviour, however, have focused on links made between migration and a principally frugivorous or nectarivorous diet (Levey & Stiles 1992, Stiles 1985, 1988) and not on moult requirements or phenology. Fruit and nectar availability may vary seasonally over an elevational gradient, and birds may migrate in order to track peak abundances (Levey & Stiles 1992, Loiselle & Blake 1991). Hummingbirds may also track arthropod (particularly spider) abundance, but this possibility remains little explored (Cotton 2007, Stiles 1980).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".