Long-term data indicates that supplementary food enhances the number of breeding pairs in a Cape Vulture<i>Gyps coprotheres</i>colony
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary The number of vultures is declining in many parts of the world due to numerous threats, such as poisoning and collisions with power-lines as well as the lack of adequate food sources. Vulture restaurants, i.e. supplementary feeding stations, have become a widespread conservation tool aimed at supporting vulture colonies. However, it is poorly understood how vulture restaurants influence population dynamics and whether they affect breeding success of vulture populations. We used a 12-year dataset from a breeding colony of the Cape Vulture Gyps coprotheres and a nearby vulture restaurant in South Africa to investigate the effect of supplementary food on population dynamics and breeding success. We found a significantly positive effect of supplementary food during the nest-building stage on the number of breeding pairs. However, breeding success, i.e. the proportion of successful nests, did not depend on supplementary food during the incubation and rearing stage. Especially during the critical rearing stage, the amount of food supplied might not have been sufficient to meet food demands of the colony. Still, our results indicate that carefully managed vulture restaurants might stabilise vulture colonies and can therefore aid vulture conservation.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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 it