MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044583731 · doi:10.1676/1559-4491-132.1.159

Diurnal and crepuscular activity during fall migration for four species of aerial foragers

2020· article· en· W3044583731 on OpenAlexaff
Tara L. Imlay, Philip D. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Journal of Ornithology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrepuscularPloverEcologyGeographyNocturnalBiologyEnvironmental scienceZoologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most migratory birds, particularly passerines or songbirds, migrate at night. However, diurnal migration has many benefits, including the ability to use a fly-and-forage migration strategy that allows an individual to refuel while migrating. Despite these benefits, very little research has been undertaken on diurnal migrants, including aerial foragers, who can refuel on the wing. In this study, we use the Motus Wildlife Tracking System to examine the timing of Bank Swallow (Riparia riparia), Barn Swallow (Hirundo rustica), Cliff Swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), and Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) movements during fall migration. Using these data, we confirm the “common knowledge” that these species of aerial foragers are diurnal migrants. During fall migration, 88.2% detections across all species were during the day, and the remaining detections were during civil twilight (range of sun elevation angles: –5.4° to 0°). Most of the detections during the day were consistent with migratory movement, and most detections during civil twilight were consistent with movements to and from communal roosts. Collectively, these results indicate that during fall migration, these 4 swallow species migrate during the day and, like other aerial foragers, may use a fly-and-forage migration strategy.

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 score0.225
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wilson Journal of OrnithologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207