Migratory behaviour of Ipswich Sparrows during spring
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimal migration theory predicts birds will follow migration strategies that minimize time, energy, or predation risk, and these strategies employ specific and conflicting behaviours. Many behaviours driving songbird strategies are relatively well known, however gaps remain, especially for spring migration. Here, we describe the behaviours of a short-distance migrant, the Ipswich Sparrow ( Passerculus sandwichensis princeps Maynard, 1872), during spring migration. We determined the start and end dates of migration, migratory duration, travel speed, distance per night, and stopover location and duration. We also examined whether behaviours differed by sex and age. Sparrows migrated between March and June, and took an average of 29.1 days at a speed of 7.2 ± 9.4 m/s (SD) to fly ∼1574 km to their breeding grounds. Sparrows flew approximately 100 km/night and made stopovers of >7 days adjacent to ecological barriers. Males migrated before females, and behaviour did not differ with age. Overall, Ipswich Sparrows had a relatively slow travel speed and covered short distances each night consistent with efforts to minimize energy costs or predation risk. They had prolonged stopovers suggesting that they were also trying to minimize time. More work is required to determine which strategy sparrows may be using during spring migration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".