Analysis of the Optimal Duration of Behavioral Observations Based on an Automated Continuous Monitoring System in Tree Swallows (Tachycineta bicolor): Is One Hour Good Enough?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of animal behavior often rely on human observation, which introduces a number of limitations on sampling. Recent developments in automated logging of behaviors make it possible to circumvent some of these problems. Once verified for efficacy and accuracy, these automated systems can be used to determine optimal sampling regimes for behavioral studies. Here, we used a radio-frequency identification (RFID) system to quantify parental effort in a bi-parental songbird species: the tree swallow (Tachycineta bicolor). We found that the accuracy of the RFID monitoring system was similar to that of video-recorded behavioral observations for quantifying parental visits. Using RFID monitoring, we also quantified the optimum duration of sampling periods for male and female parental effort by looking at the relationship between nest visit rates estimated from sampling periods with different durations and the total visit numbers for the day. The optimum sampling duration (the shortest observation time that explained the most variation in total daily visits per unit time) was 1h for both sexes. These results show that RFID and other automated technologies can be used to quantify behavior when human observation is constrained, and the information from these monitoring technologies can be useful for evaluating the efficacy of human observation methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".