A second decade of overwintering hummingbirds in Florida and Alabama
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For a second decade, from November 2008 to March 2018, we examined the species diversity, return rate, longevity, and migration routes of hummingbirds overwintering in southern Alabama and the panhandle, northern peninsula, and central peninsula of Florida. We captured and banded 11 species of hummingbirds (n= 1,870 individuals), including 931 Rufous Hummingbirds (Selasphorus rufus; 49%), 583 Ruby-throated Hummingbirds (Archilochus colubris; 31%), 219 Black-chinned Hummingbirds (A. alexandri; 12%), 49 Buff-bellied Hummingbirds (Amazilia yucatanensis), 49 Calliope Hummingbirds (S. calliope), 19 Allen's Hummingbirds (S. sasin), 11 Broad-tailed Hummingbirds (S. platycercus), 6 Broad-billed Hummingbirds (Cynanthus latriostris), 1 Anna's Hummingbird (Calypte anna), 1 Costa's Hummingbird (Calypte costae), and 1 White-eared Hummingbird (Hylocharis leucotis). Site fidelity was high, with 299 hummingbirds of 5 species returning at least once. Two Rufous Hummingbirds migrated to our study area in the autumn from the West (Oklahoma and Texas). One Ruby-throated Hummingbird banded in Lakeland, Florida, was recovered in Utopia, New Brunswick, Canada, suggesting the overwintering Ruby-throated Hummingbirds in our study area are migratory and not sedentary.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".