MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408574721 · doi:10.1080/15594491.2024.2444030

Phenological changes in sex- and age-differential autumn migration of the Least Flycatcher ( <i>Empidonax minimus</i> )

2025· article· en· W4408574721 on OpenAlexaffabout
Myrthe Van Brempt, Geoffrey L. Holroyd, Glen T. Hvenegaard

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Journal of Ornithology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlycatcherPhenologyBiologyDifferential (mechanical device)ZoologyEcologyGeographyDemographyPhysicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bird migration phenology has changed over the past few decades, with warming due to climate change as a likely cause. Age- and sex-specific differential migration are well documented in many species, yet only a few studies have investigated whether differential migration is reflected in a change in migration phenology over time. We studied differential migration of Least Flycatchers (Empidonax minimus) in the Beaverhill Natural Area, Alberta, Canada, using a 32 year autumn banding dataset. Adults migrated 13 days ahead of hatch-year birds, consistent with previous research, and adult females were 5 days ahead of adult males. Moreover, adult Least Flycatchers advanced migration phenology by 14 days (median) over a 32 year time period, whereas hatch-year birds advanced their median migration date by 2 days. Both adult sexes contributed to this change, although the magnitude of change was greater for females. Overall, these results suggest different phenological responses of age groups and/or sex to a changing climate with likely attendant effects on the species’ demography.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.241
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wilson Journal of OrnithologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207