MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4378211988 · doi:10.32942/x23029

Light wavelength and pulsing frequency affect avoidance responses of Canada geese

2023· preprint· en· W4378211988 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ryan Lunn, Patrice Baumhardt, Bradley F. Blackwell, J. P. Freyssinier, Esteban Fernández‐Juricic

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAttractionGooseBlue lightRed lightEnvironmental scienceColoredWavelengthAffect (linguistics)Collision avoidanceCollisionOpticsAudiologyPhysicsEcologyBiologyPsychologyComputer scienceCommunicationMedicineMaterials scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collisions between birds and aircraft cause bird mortality, economic damage, and aviation safety hazards. One proposed solution to increasing the distance at which birds detect and move away from an approaching aircraft, ultimately mitigating the probability of collision, is through onboard lighting systems. Lights in vehicles have been shown to lead to earlier reactions in some bird species but they could also generate attraction, potentially increasing the probability of collision. Using information on the visual system of the Canada goose (Branta canadensis), we developed light stimuli of high chromatic contrast to their eyes. We then conducted a controlled behavioral experiment (i.e., single-choice test) to assess the avoidance or attraction responses of Canada geese to LED lights of different wavelengths (blue, 483 nm; red, 631nm) and pulsing frequencies (steady, pulsing at 2 Hz). Overall, Canada geese tended to avoid the blue light and move towards the red light treatment; however, these responses depended heavily on light exposure order. At the beginning of the experiment, geese tended to avoid the red light. However, after further exposure the birds developed an attraction to the red light, consistent with the mere exposure effect. The response to the blue light generally followed a U-shape relationship (avoidance, attraction, avoidance) with increasing number of exposures, again consistent with the mere exposure effect, but followed by the satiation effect. Lights pulsing at 2 Hz enhanced avoidance responses under high ambient light conditions, whereas steady lights enhanced avoidance responses under dim, ambient light conditions. Our results have implications for the design of lighting systems aimed at mitigating collisions between birds and human objects. LED lights in the blue portion of the spectrum are good candidates for deterrents and lights in the red portion of the spectrum may be counterproductive given the attraction effects with increasing exposure, and consideration should be given to systems that automatically modify pulsing of the light depending on ambient light intensity to enhance avoidance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.229 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→