Effects of Electromagnetic Fields on the Growth of Nestling American Kestrels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We studied nestling American Kestrels (Falco sparverius) in a laboratory setting to determine whether exposure to electromagnetic fields (EMFs) affected their growth. Captive nestlings were raised by their parents under control or EMF conditions similar to those occurring near transmission lines in the wild. Nestlings also were exposed to EMFs as embryos when incubated by their parents. Measurements of body mass, and lengths of tarsi, antebrachia, and feathers were taken every three days after hatching. EMF exposure affected the growth of female and male nestlings. EMF nestlings and fledglings were heavier and had longer tarsi. The periods of maximal weight gain and antebrachial growth were delayed in EMF males compared to controls, although EMF males were heavier and had similarly long antebrachia to controls by 21 days of age. Growth of ninth primaries and central rectrices of nestlings were unaffected by EMF exposure. Growth patterns of male and female kestrel nestlings were similar to those previously reported for this species, although the periods of maximal weight gain and bone growth did not occur earlier in EMF males than females as it did in controls.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".