Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, Mary and Charles Brown () published an eye-opening study on adult Cliff Swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) wherein they estimated that blood sampling led to a -% decrease in survival.This is a staggering estimate that few would have anticipated.Moreover, it promises to provoke a thorough and critical reevaluation of the consequences of blood sampling, which we welcome.Blood sampling is well established as a standard tool in ornithological research; a recent Google Scholar search produced , references for the term "avian blood samples."Sheldon et al. () reviewed numerous uses of blood sampling, including () its necessity for understanding fundamentals of avian physiology such as endocrinology (Wingfield et al. ), metabolism (Schekkerman and Visser ), and parasitology (Dawson and Bortolotti ); () its value as a source of DNA for population genetics or evolutionary studies (e.g., Irwin et al. , Hellgren et al. ); () the stable-isotope record it provides for connecting migrant breeding populations with their wintering sites and for describing diet (e.g., Rubenstein and Hobson ); and () its use in tracking infectious diseases such as avian influenza, malaria, and West Nile virus (e.g., Gancz et al. ).A curtailment of blood sampling would severely hinder-and, in many cases, completely impede-important lines of inquiry in myriad areas of ornithology, including behavior, conservation, ecology and evolution, and physiology.It is therefore important that the Browns' recent findings be put into perspective while we reexamine accepted blood-sampling protocols.Here, we remind readers of the potential consequences of blood sampling, suggest ways to mitigate some of these consequences, and advocate additional research to further refine our field sampling techniques.We hope that this will provide some perspectives on the Browns' () findings and stimulate further discussion.
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 | 0.013 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
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".