MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3198286462 · doi:10.53607/wrb.v28.104

FLAP Birds—Dealing with Migratory Birds

2010· article· en· W3198286462 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emily Meredith

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Rehabilitation Bulletin · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsToronto Zoo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrashWildlifeGeographyAeronauticsSpring (device)EcologyEngineeringBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During spring and fall migrations, birds migrating during the night are attracted by city lights and often collide with Toronto high–rise buildings. Birds also crash into windows during the day as the reflections create an illusion of open sky. Toronto Wildlife Centre (TWC) works with the Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP) to assess and treat the birds that have been injured. In peak flight times 20 to100 birds can arrive at the centre daily. The arrival of so many birds can be a daunting task if one is unprepared. Discussion focuses on how to deal with these rehabilitation patients, the most common injuries, housing, and diet concerns.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.005

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.210 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Rehabilitation BulletinSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207