MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946955062

Food Preferences of Red-Headed Woodpeckers (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) and the Relationship with Season Change

2019· article· en· W2946955062 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Crystal Sauder

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons @ Olivet (Olivet Nazarene University) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNesting seasonPopulationDemographySociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Red-headed woodpeckers (Melanerpes erythrocephalus) used to be easy to find out in the wild, but as humans encroached on their habitats, their populations started to become impacted. They have a habitat range from Southern Canada down to the Gulf Coast. In several states their numbers are threatened due to loss of habitat. Red-headed woodpeckers prefer to live in open woodlands with dead, or dying, trees to nest in. As humans take away the dead trees from the forests, red-headed woodpeckers are losing their nesting sites. Preservation of red-headed woodpecker habitats are needed to ensure the population starts to grow, and the numbers go from the “threatened” level to more stable levels. In order to preserve red-headed woodpecker habitats, knowing their food preferences is useful. The purpose of this study was to determine if red-headed woodpeckers had a preference when it came to food and if that preference changed as the seasons changed. Photos of red-headed woodpeckers foraging on food items not from bird feeders were collected from macaulaylibrary.org. After analyzing 18,400 photos it was determined that red-headed woodpeckers prefer to eat nuts over any other type of food that was observed. As the seasons go from warm to cold, there is a decrease in the percentage of animals forged on.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons @ Olivet (Olivet Nazarene University)Same topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207