Lack of Foraging Site Fidelity Between Years by Common Nighthawks (Chordeiles minor)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Birds in the family Caprimulgidae generally exhibit high nest site fidelity, but it is not known if fidelity extends to foraging sites, especially for Common Nighthawks (Chordeiles minor), which are otherwise one of the most studied species. Common Nighthawks are ecologically distinct from other caprimulgids, being one of the few true aerial hawking species and among the longest distance migrants in the group. We predicted these birds would exhibit fidelity between years to a foraging site in British Columbia, Canada, where they forage in large numbers on a nightly basis and the same individuals return nightly. We banded individuals and, for a subset of birds, attached transmitters programmed to activate upon return to the foraging area the next year. We estimate we marked approximately 10% of the birds foraging at the site, but did not recapture a single marked bird despite capturing potentially 50% of birds foraging at that site over the two subsequent years. Furthermore, we did not detect any of the subset of birds with radiotransmitters, indicating they did not return to the foraging site in the year following initial capture. Our data suggest low fidelity between years to a foraging site, in contrast with the published records for nesting by this species and \nwith the general expectations for the group.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".