Large winter falcons and their Rock Pigeon (<i>Columba livia</i>) prey at an urban grain terminal in Edmonton, Alberta: an update
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In winter, Gyrfalcon (Falco rusticolus) and Prairie Falcon (Falco mexicanus) frequent a 96-year-old grain terminal, in Edmonton, Alberta, hunting Rock Pigeon (Columba livia). This phenomenon was reviewed shortly after it was first noticed by others in 1998 and, since then, we have observed hunting success and methods of Gyrfalcons and Prairie Falcons that were similar but not identical to earlier observations, with success rates of 21.0% and 10.6%, respectively, compared with 10.6% and 26.0% earlier. The most frequently observed hunting strategy for both species was a repeated upward attack on swirling Rock Pigeon flocks, resulting in success rates of 10.7% and 11.4%, respectively. Notably, 50% of downward dive hunts made by Gyrfalcon were successful, although only eight hunts using this method were recorded. The falcons were mildly selective with respect to pigeon colour morphs, with an apparent preference for pied colouration. Contrary to previous interpretations, Rock Pigeon do not appear to eat spilled grain on the building to any great extent; instead, the terminal may simply provide abundant roosting sites, which attain surface temperatures roughly 10°C warmer than ambient on sunny days and at temperatures below −20°C when the building is warmed internally.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".