MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W611246304 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v119i3.151

Long-eared Owls, <em>Asio otus</em>: A Review of North American Banding

2005· review· en· W611246304 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
C. Stuart Houston

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationGeographyMicrotusRange (aeronautics)OutbreakZoologyDemographyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Saskatchewan, at the northern edge of the species’ range, the Long-eared Owl (Asio otus) is an irruptive species that has appeared in numbers during major vole (Microtus) outbreaks in 4 of 44 years. Seven other years have had either no bandings or no sightings over large areas. In a search for possible evidence of food-based nomadism, population trends, length and synchronicity of cycles, and longevity, I reviewed all banding in North America through 1998. Prior to banding office computerization (retroactive to 1955), 803 Long-eared Owls had been banded with 33 band encounters (4.1%). Between 1955 and 1998 there were another 10,250 banded by 426 banders with 86 band encounters (0.8%). Encounter records, especially those involving unexpected directions and distances, tend to support but do not prove food-based nomadism. Peaks of migration movements at different long-term stations occurred in different years. There is soft evidence of both 10- and 3-yr cycles. There is inconclusive evidence for a continuing population decline. The oldest banded bird in North America lived for 11 years, 1 month, but another possibly lived for 15 years, 8 months.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207