NESTING OF THE SCALLOPED WOODCREEPER (LEPIDOCOLAPTES FALCINELLUS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We provide the first description of the nest of the Scalloped Woodcreeper (Lepidocolaptes falcinellus), its clutch size, nestlings, and nesting behavior from prospecting to fledging, based on 102 h of observation at a nest in the subtropical Atlantic forest at Parque Provincial Cruce Caballero, province of Misiones, Argentina. The nest was in a long vertical crack, 2.5 m high in the trunk of a cedro (Cedrela fissilis). The two adults filled the bottom of the cavity with bark flakes to a height of 11 cm. They took turns incubating the three eggs with 100% attentiveness for 15 to 16 days, and fed the two nestlings a diet of arthropods, especially caterpillars. After the male died, the female raised the nestlings alone and they fledged two days apart, 18 and 19 days after hatching. The Scalloped Woodcreepers were observed on four occasions defending their nest against potential predators and cavity competitors (White-throated Woodcreeper, Xiphocolaptes albicollis; Yellow-fronted Woodpecker, Melanerpes flavifrons; Olivaceous Woodcreeper, Sittasomus griseicapillus). Our observations of nest construction, incubation period, nestling development, nestling period, and parental behavior for Scalloped Woodcreepers were similar to published observations for Streak-headed Woodcreepers (Lepidocolaptes souleyetti) and Spot-crowned Woodcreepers (L. affinis) of tropical Central America; however, Scalloped Woodcreepers had longer bouts on the nest and higher nest-attentiveness during incubation, and in these characteristics were similar to Planalto Woodcreepers (Dendrocolaptes platyrostris) that breed at the same site in northeastern Argentina.
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) | 0.002 | 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".