Energetic and behavioral consequences of migration: an empirical evaluation in the context of the full annual cycle
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seasonal migrations are used by diverse animal taxa, yet the costs and benefits of migrating have rarely been empirically examined. The aim of this study was to determine how migration influences two ecological currencies, energy expenditure and time allocated towards different behaviors, in a full annual cycle context. We compare these currencies among lesser black-backed gulls that range from short- (< 250 km) to long-distance (> 4500 km) migrants. Daily time-activity budgets were reconstructed from tri-axial acceleration and GPS, which, in conjunction with a bioenergetics model to estimate thermoregulatory costs, enabled us to estimate daily energy expenditure throughout the year. We found that migration strategy had no effect on annual energy expenditure, however, energy expenditure through time deviated more from the annual average as migration distance increased. Patterns in time-activity budgets were similar across strategies, suggesting migration strategy does not limit behavioral adjustments required for other annual cycle stages (breeding, molt, wintering). Variation among individuals using the same strategy was high, suggesting that daily behavioral decisions (e.g. foraging strategy) contribute more towards energy expenditure than an individual's migration strategy. These findings provide unprecedented new understanding regarding the relative importance of fine versus broad-scale behavioral strategies towards annual energy expenditures.
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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it