Bibliographic record
Abstract
Yellow-headed (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus) and red-winged (Agelaius phoeniceus) blackbirds coexist in marshes across North America. Pictured here at Iona Beach Regional Park in Vancouver, British Columbia, males of each species compete for nesting areas. In wetlands across their overlapping ranges, yellow-heads are dominant over red-wings, pushing them out of valuable marsh real-estate to secure the best nesting places. Unfortunately, since the construction of Vancouver International Airport in 1968 and its expansion in subsequent years, both species have lost substantial extents of marsh habitat. Given their dominant–subordinate relationship, one might expect that habitat loss should disproportionately impact the subordinate red-wings, since they get last choice at nesting habitat, which might limit their reproductive success. Today, however, Iona Beach supports a healthy and abundant population of red-wings, and usually hosts only a few yellow-heads. Indeed, over the past half-century, the population of yellow-heads at Iona Beach has decreased ~95%, down from an estimated 70 individuals in 1970 to only 1–3 nowadays (Campbell RW, Dawe NK, McTaggart-Cowan I, et al. 2001. The Birds of British Columbia. Volume 4. Royal British Columbia Museum Victoria. Vancouver, Canada: UBC Press). Despite their dominance, the yellow-headed blackbirds of Vancouver have seemingly been more negatively impacted by habitat loss and degradation than their subordinate red-winged cousins. Does their dominant behavior make yellow-heads more vulnerable to change? Are red-wings more tolerant of anthropogenic disturbances? Over the next decade, the potential extirpation of yellow-headed blackbirds from Iona Beach calls into question which blackbird genuinely is the dominant species. Of course, none of this stops the remaining few yellow-heads from bullying the abundant red-wings out of prime nesting space. At least population decline has not adversely impacted their yellow-headed ego!
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".