MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2971562997 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2019-0059

Rapid adoption of nest boxes by Prothonotary Warblers (<i>Protonotaria citrea</i>) in mesic deciduous forest

2019· article· en· W2971562997 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Allan J. Mueller, Daniel J. Twedt, E. Keith Bowers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDirectorate for Biological SciencesUniversity of Memphis
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)WarblerBiologyEcologyHabitatDeciduousEmberizidaeGeneralist and specialist speciesShrubNest boxPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breeding territory selection in Prothonotary Warblers (Protonotaria citrea (Boddaert, 1783)) is thought to hinge on standing water, with a strong preference for low-lying areas prone to seasonal flooding. However, we have observed this species nesting in much drier areas than previously reported. We recently initiated a study of the Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus (Latham, 1790)) using wooden nest boxes, and nearly 60% of all nests produced in these boxes during the initial study year were produced by Prothonotary Warblers, despite this species being absent from our field site during the year preceding nest-box availability. Most nests were produced in dense, closed-canopy forest with a thick shrub layer >100 m from any water body. There was no difference in the mean distance from water between nests of the Prothonotary Warbler and those of the Carolina Wren, a habitat generalist that does not nest over water. We then observed a 60% increase in the number of Prothonotary Warbler nests the following year, along with significant increases in breeding productivity. Although they nested on sites that they are not thought to prefer, our observations suggest that Prothonotary Warblers may nest in drier areas than usual if appropriate nest cavities are provided.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→