Co-roosting within an enclosed space: are Chimney Swifts (<i>Chaetura pelagica</i>) disturbed by sharing a roost chimney with Rock Pigeons (<i>Columba livia</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many avian species co-roost with other avian species, but roost sharing has not previously been reported for species that roost in enclosed spaces. We report co-roosting of Chimney Swifts ( Chaetura pelagica (Linnaeus, 1758)) and Rock Pigeons ( Columba livia J.F. Gmelin, 1789) in a Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, Canada, chimney. We predicted that life history and behavioural differences between the two species would lead to disturbance in Chimney Swifts, but not Pigeons. Of two chimneys examined, Swifts exited earlier in the morning in the chimney with co-roosting than in the chimney where they roosted alone. While Pigeons appeared undisturbed by moving Swifts unless Swifts landed on them, Swifts were sensitive to Pigeon activity. In the evening, Pigeon movements caused Swifts to relocate within the chimney or to exit the chimney. Not all departed Swifts re-entered the roost following the disturbance. In the morning, Swifts appeared more tolerant of Pigeon movement, but were often disturbed by Pigeon exit or entry. Permanently exiting the roost in the evening or departing too early in the morning may increase energy expenditure costs for migrating Swifts. Installing Pigeon deterrent devices at the chimney may reduce disturbance to Chimney Swifts within the roost and potentially prevent early exit in the morning.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".