MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3126906101 · doi:10.1676/1559-4491-132.2.248

Urban House Sparrow ( <i>Passer domesticus</i> ) populations decline in North America

2020· article· en· W3126906101 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Liam A. Berigan, Emma I. Greig, David N. Bonter

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Journal of Ornithology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSparrowPasserGeographyAccipiterPopulationContext (archaeology)Range (aeronautics)EcologyFlockBiologyPredationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

House Sparrow (Passer domesticus) populations declined across much of their global range in the late 20th century. Most research examining this decline is conducted in the species' native European range, but Europe encompasses a small portion of the species' current distribution. House Sparrow population trends in the United States and Canada, and the potential mechanisms driving these trends, remain relatively unexplored. We use 21 years of data from Project FeederWatch, a large-scale citizen science project, to investigate House Sparrow population trends in North America. We found winter flocks in urbanized areas were larger than flocks in rural areas, with widespread spatial heterogeneity in local population trends. Despite greater abundance in developed areas, House Sparrow populations declined in developed areas from 1995 to 2016 while remaining stable in rural areas. House Sparrow population declines coincide with an increase in populations and expansion of the winter distributions of Accipiter hawks, which are known predators of House Sparrows. However, we do not find a direct connection between the presence of Accipiter hawks at count sites and House Sparrow population declines in winter. These results expand our knowledge of widespread House Sparrow declines to North America and provide context for continuing research on House Sparrow declines in the introduced range.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.933

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations33
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wilson Journal of OrnithologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207