MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effects of light characteristics on avian mortality at lighthouses

2003· article· en· W2169350809 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Jason Jones, Charles M. Francis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersW. Garfield Weston FoundationBird Studies CanadaGarfield Weston FoundationMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsBiologyNocturnalSpring (device)EcologyArtificial lightLight pollutionBird migrationFisheryZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The generation of artificial light by human activity can have far‐reaching detrimental impacts upon a wide variety of organisms. A great deal of attention has been paid to well‐lit buildings, television towers, and communication towers as sources of mortality for nocturnally migrating songbirds. However, despite being among the first human structures known to generate migratory bird kills, little is known about the current impact of lighthouses on birds, or the impact of light design. We examined the impact of a lighthouse on nocturnal avian migrants at Long Point, Lake Erie, Ontario, Canada. From 1960–1989, mean annual kills were 200 birds in spring, and 393 in autumn, with kills of up to 2000 birds in a single night. In 1989, the Long Point lighthouse was automated, with a simultaneous change in beam characteristics – the new beam is narrower and less powerful. This change brought about a drastic reduction in avian mortality at the lighthouse to a mean of only 18.5 birds per year in spring, and 9.6 in autumn from 1990–2002. Our results highlight the effectiveness of simple changes in light signatures in reducing avian light attraction and mortality during migration.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations96
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian BiologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207