Nutrient Preferences of Brazilian Hummingbirds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Stripe-tailed Hummingbird (Eupherusa eximia) prefers nectar that is highly supplemented in both vitamins and minerals, when offered the choice of no, low, or high supplemented nectar. We tested the responses of hummingbirds in southern Brazil to four solutions: nectar, nectar supplemented with vitamins, nectar supplemented with minerals, and water with both vitamins and minerals added. Hummingbirds spent less time at and made fewer visits to the supplemented water than to the different nectar solutions, suggesting that nutrients alone are not enough to attract birds. One of eight species, the Violet-capped Woodnymph (Thalurania glaucopis), visited the mineral supplemented nectar more often than both nectars and one unidentified hermit species (Phaethornis sp.) visited the mineral treatment more than straight nectar. The Black-throated Mango (Anthracothorax nigricollis) made more visits to the vitamin supplemented nectar than to mineral-rich nectar whereas the Glittering-bellied Emerald (Chlorostilbon aureoventris) avoided the vitamin treatment, preferring straight nectar. A general pattern of preference was not found among species.
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 | 0.000 | 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".