Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flocking behaviour of northwest crows (Corvus caurinus) is an important mechanism for crows toprotect themselves from predators and to keep warm (Goodenough et al, 2017). The objective of thisstudy is to determine whether temperature affects the flocking behaviour, i.e., size of crow flocks andnumber of flocks, of northwest crows in Vancouver, BC, as winter approaches. It is hypothesized that astemperature decreases, crows will flock in larger flocks. To perform this experiment, the number of crowflocks as well as the approximate size of the flocks (grouped into categories to approximate the number ofcrows per flock: 2-5, 6-20, 21-50, 51-100, >100) was tallied for a ten-minute period prior to sunset dailyfor 2 weeks (n=14) in the same location. The temperature at the time of data collection was recorded. Alinear regression was performed on the number of crow flocks and temperature to determine whetherthere is a correlation. It was determined that there is a negative correlation between total number of flocksand temperature as the beta-coefficient is -0.79 and with a statistically significant p-value of 0.0073(<0.05). Separate linear regressions were performed for individual categories of the sizes of the flockswhich found that only flocks with less than five crows had statistically significant correlations withtemperature. Therefore, the study fails to reject the null hypothesis that temperature has no effect on crowflocking behaviour and thus concludes that temperature does not impact northwest crow flockingbehaviour.
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".