MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172631637 · doi:10.1676/02-112

A PROBABLE GRASSHOPPER × SAVANNAH SPARROW HYBRID SINGING A SONG SPARROW SONG

2003· article· en· W2172631637 on OpenAlexaff
Andrea L. Jones, W. Gregory Shriver, Natalie Bulgin, Ronald B. Lockwood, Peter D. Vickery

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Bulletin · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSparrowGrasshopperPasserBiologyEcologyZoologyEmberizidaeHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We observed a male sparrow in May 1999 in Stow, Massachusetts, that showed hybrid characteristics resembling both Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) and Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis). During 1999 and 2000, this male sang a simplified Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia) song. However, in 2001 it also sang a typical Savannah Sparrow song and frequently alternated between these two songs. We recorded songs and captured this individual in an area with numerous Song Sparrows and about three pairs of Savannah Sparrows. We compared mitochondrial DNA, morphological measurements, behavior, and audio spectrograms of this hybrid with similar data from Grasshopper, Savannah, and Song sparrows. Genetic analysis indicated that the hybrid's mother was almost certainly a Grasshopper Sparrow. The hybrid showed morphological traits that were within the range of both Savannah Sparrow and Song Sparrow, but generally were more consistent for Savannah Sparrow. We observed this individual frequently associating with Savannah Sparrows, attempting to copulate with a female Savannah Sparrow, carrying Savannah Sparrow fecal sacs, and feeding young Savannah Sparrows, lending additional support to Savannah Sparrow paternity. We conclude that this individual was a Grasshopper × Savannah sparrow hybrid that learned to imitate the songs of Song Sparrows at an early stage of development. Interestingly, the hybrid's exposed culmen was considerably longer than culmen measurements of any of the three species of sparrows under consideration.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wilson BulletinSame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207