Daily Torpor in Free‐Ranging Whip‐Poor‐Wills (<i>Caprimulgus vociferus)</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of heterothermy is well documented in the order Caprimulgiformes, but there is conflicting information regarding whether whip-poor-wills are heterothermic. Consequently, we sought to rigorously examine the thermoregulatory abilities of this species. Our study was conducted in southeast South Dakota (42 degrees 47'N, 97 degrees 0'W), where 35 individuals were captured and outfitted with external, temperature-sensitive radio transmitters. We found evidence that whip-poor-wills used daily torpor during the autumn of 2000 and the spring of 2001 (n=12 torpor bouts, based on 346 bird-nights of observation). The average minimum skin temperature of two torpid whip-poor-wills (n=5 torpor bouts) in spring 2001 was 20.1 degrees +/-2.6 degrees C, and bouts of reduced skin temperature lasted an average of 360.0+/-93.7 min. The distribution of heterothermy within the Caprimulgiform phylogeny suggests that the trait is ancestral in the order. Specific heterothermic parameters, however, differ among the different species. In particular, the frequency of torpor use in whip-poor-wills is lower than for other species. These data suggest that several factors, including weather conditions and gender-specific reproductive ecology, influence the propensity of whip-poor-wills and other Caprimulgiformes to enter torpor.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".