MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6981829461

FOOD ITEMS AND FEEDING RATES FOR WILD WHOOPING CRANE COLTS IN WOOD\nBUFFALO NATIONAL PARK

2001· article· en· W6981829461 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPentecostalism and Christianity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersParks Canada
KeywordsNational parkOdonataNymphNest (protein structural motif)DragonflyHatching
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Food habits of 5 whooping crane (Orus americana) colts in 4 nest ponds were recorded in the days following hatching in Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP). In total, 93 hours of observations were made from blinds that were 60-80 m away from the nest. Spotting scopes and binoculars were used to identify food items. The adults were observed bringing the following items to the colts: adult dragonflies (Libellula sp., and Aeshna sp.), fish (Culaea inconstans), diving beetles (Rhantus binotatus, Acilius semisulcatus, Oraphoderus occidentalis, and Dytiscus alaskanus), damselflies (Enallagma sp., and Lestes sp.), snails (Lymnaea stagnalis, and Helisoma sp.), a vole (Clethrionomys gapped), a leech (unidentified), and a chorus frog (Pseudacris maculata). However, the food type most commonly consumed by the colts (88% of known items, n = 156) was dragonfly nymphs. Overall, females made most of the food deliveries (63% of deliveries for all nests, n = 194). Of the 4 nests, 2 hatched both eggs. Of these, 1 second hatched colt was preyed upon prior to being fed, and the other second hatched colt received fewer feedings than its older sibling when compared at equal ages. In addition, between 1998-99, 18 whooping crane colts had transmitters attached for a whooping crane colt mortality study. Five colt carcasses were located during the mortality study and necropsies revealed that 4 (1 was too decomposed) had only dragonfly nymphs in their digestive systems.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.767
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicPentecostalism and Christianity StudiesFrench-language works237,207