MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782905860 · doi:10.1515/ami-2017-0004

Associations between sex, age and species-specific climate sensitivity in migration

2017· article· en· W2782905860 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine Jarjour, Barbara Frei, Kyle H. Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Migration · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPasserinePhenologyClimate changeGeographySpring (device)Bird migrationClimatologyEcologyDemographyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Weather often plays a key role in migration timing, and temporal shifts over the past century have been heavily researched and linked to climate change. Much research is however limited by the use of arbitrary time periods during which weather is thought to most influence migration. Here, we compare the classic fixed window method to a novel sliding window approach created to determine periods of temperature sensitivity among organisms, in this case on the migration phenology of nineteen passerine species banded at the McGill Bird Observatory in Montréal, Québec, from 2005 to 2015. We found overall shorter temperature sensitivity windows in the spring than the fall migration and deemed the nonarbitrarily chosen periods of temperature sensitivity to be more useful than the classic fixed window method when used with caution. We also found significant variation in migration timing of 11 species, as well as more cases of male birds arriving in spring prior to females than the reverse. More males departed in fall before females as well. Similarly, on average, older birds arrived in spring ahead of younger individuals and departed prior to younger in the fall.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations12
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal MigrationSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207