MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SEX AND NEST STAGE DIFFERENCES IN THE CIRCADIAN FORAGING BEHAVIORS OF NESTING BURROWING OWLS

2006· article· en· W2173444900 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ray G. Poulin, L. Danielle Todd

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological Applications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ReginaUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsForagingPredationNest (protein structural motif)BiologyCrepuscularDuskEcologyZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used infrared cameras to accurately record the circadian provisioning behaviors of nesting Burrowing Owls (Athene cunicularia) in southern Saskatchewan, Canada. We monitored 19 nests over three years and recorded 4675 prey deliveries. We found a sex-based difference in foraging behavior: males hunted vertebrates during crepuscular periods, and females hunted insects during diurnal periods. Males delivered between 82% and 96% of all vertebrate prey depending on the stage of the nest. Males delivered at least 90% of all insects during early nest stages, after which females delivered an average of 76% of the insects. The rate of vertebrate deliveries increased from 1.3 to 7.7 per 24 hr as the summer progressed, and the number of insect deliveries increased from less than 1 to 18.6 per 24 hr. Vertebrates comprised 98%–99% of prey biomass delivered until females began delivering insects, but even then vertebrates still comprised 94% of prey biomass. Insects were consistently delivered at the highest rate during the day and vertebrates were consistently delivered at the highest rates during the dusk and dawn periods.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 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

Citations25
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrnithological ApplicationsSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207