MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403981734 · doi:10.5751/ace-02752-190220

Seeing isn’t always believing: visual observations underestimate space use in the eastern Grasshopper Sparrow ( Ammodramus savannarum pratensis )

2024· article· en· W4403981734 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kevin C. Hannah, Julia E. Put, David D. Hope

Bibliographic record

VenueAvian Conservation and Ecology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicImpact of Light on Environment and Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGrasshopperSparrowEcologyGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating space use in organisms is important for understanding their basic ecology and for effective conservation and management. Typically, areas that are guarded or defended are referred to as territories, whereas home ranges encompass space use for all activities. We estimated territory and home range size for the eastern Grasshopper Sparrow, a subspecies of conservation concern, at two sites near the northern limit of the breeding range near Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The average territory size (1.05 ± 0.16 ha) was significantly smaller than the average home range size (2.69 ± 0.51 ha). Similarly, territories overlapped home ranges by an average of 55%, suggesting that visual observations alone may limit our understanding of space use in this species. Territories and home ranges averaged larger on a natural limestone alvar compared to a pasture study site. While space use averaged higher at the alvar site, birds at the pasture site compensated for smaller territories by overlapping more with neighboring conspecifics. Given high aggregation and overlap in space use in this study, we discuss our results in the context of improving survey count accuracy and conservation outcomes in this declining species.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAvian Conservation and EcologySame topicImpact of Light on Environment and HealthFrench-language works237,207