Assessing the relationship between garden bird feeding patterns and weather in Vancouver, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent increase in garden bird feeding by the public has provided birds with a novelfood source, impacting ecosystem interactions, ecological niches, and migration of facultativemigratory birds. The larger implications of garden bird feeding are not well understood andrequire further research. This study assesses the relationship between weather and feedingpatterns in Vancouver, Canada in order to determine the optimal environmental conditions forstudying garden birds in the future. Artificial nectar and seed feeders located in an urban settingwere observed for 15 minutes (n=22) in the morning (09:00-11:00) and afternoon (15:00-17:00).Total feeding time and the number of feeding events were recorded, along with data onenvironmental temperature, wind speed, and brightness. A one-tailed paired t-test revealed asignificant difference in nectar and seed feeding times (p=0.002) so data from the two feederswere analyzed separately. A second one-tailed paired t-test revealed insignificant differencesbetween morning and afternoon total seed feeding time (p=0.27), number of seed feeding events(p=0.10), total nectar feeding time (p=0.38), and number of nectar feeding events (p=0.43), sothe AM and PM data were combined, plotted, and a regression model was developed. Whilebrightness did not impact feeding patterns, linear regressions showed an inverse relationshipbetween wind and total feeding time or number of feeding events for both seed- and nectarfeeders.A 2nd order polynomial regression showed minimum nectar feeding occurs at 10oC,while seed-feeding is unaffected by temperature. The study concludes that future analyses ongarden birds should occur in less windy weather, below 7oC or above 12oC for maximalobservations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".