MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2776132940 · doi:10.7290/nqsp080w6z

Comparing the Accuracy of Egg Candling and Egg Flotation to Estimate the Hatching Date of Northern Bobwhite Clutches

2017· article· en· W2776132940 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Byron R. Buckley, Alicia K. Andes, C. Brad Dabbert

Bibliographic record

VenueNational Quail Symposium Proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHatchingNest (protein structural motif)ColinusBiologyPredationEcologyAnimal scienceFisheryZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Floating and candling avian eggs to assess hatch dates has been used successfully to estimate hatch dates for wild bird clutches for decades. However, there is a dearth of information assessing the accuracy of these techniques to estimate northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) hatch dates. We captured and fitted a hen bobwhites with very high frequency transmitters during January and February of 2011–2012. We monitored each bird twice weekly until nesting was initiated. We searched for the nest while the hen was away from the nest (i.e., feeding) to reduce potential abandonment. We used egg floatation and egg candling methods to attempt to estimate wild northern bobwhite clutches during the 2011–2012 nesting seasons. We used a mini MagLite© (97 lumens; Mag Instrument, Inc., Ontario, CA, USA) with the glass lens removed so eggs would sit near the bulb to increase the illumination. We used a dark green 68-cm x 137-cm towel to cover the observer in the field to reduce the naturally occurring light, which might have reduced the visibility of the chick embryo. We based age of the eggs (no. of days since the start of incubation) on the embryo growth stage at the time of nest discovery. We conducted egg flotation at the same time as candling. We used a 100-mL glass beaker with 100-mL of ambient temperature tap water to completely submerge the egg to estimate hatch date. We based the flotation estimation age on the angle at which the egg floated in the water. We also conducted a controlled laboratory experiment using pen-raised quail eggs collected from the breeding colony at the Quail-Tech Alliance breeding facility in Lubbock, Texas. We placed 110 eggs in a commercial incubator that was maintained at 37° C with 55% humidity for the duration of the study. We used 3 novice observers to determine the impact of observer bias on the techniques of estimating hatch date. We placed random groups of eggs (i.e., 5–15 eggs at a time until 110 eggs were obtained) into the incubator at a staggered rate to increase variation in the study. We used the same field techniques for hatch date estimation in the controlled study. We first floated eggs during both controlled and field observations to reduce any potential bias that candling might have on the hatch date estimation (i.e., lack of embryo growth). During the controlled study observers examined the eggs individually. Using the average estimated

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNational Quail Symposium ProceedingsSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207