Rearing and Release of Two Young American Kestrels (falco Sparverius)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 5 July 1973, while banding young American Kestrels on the Buena Vista Marsh in central Wisconsin, we inspected a nest reported to us by a local farmer.It was located in a living white pine (Pinus strobus), part of a small clump of trees in an open field.There were several holes along the trunk; one of the uppermost, about 35 feet up, contained five young American Kestrels.All were females infested with ectoparasites.The nest material, presumably from a previous occupant, was very moist.The cavity was so narrow that the young birds were forced to sit on top of each other.Two of the young were considerably smaller than the others and very weak.We banded, weighed, and measured the three healthy chicks and returned them to the nest but took the two weak chicks home to hand rear.Their age was approximately five days.For the first few days we kept them in a cloth-lined cardboard box and fed them pea-sized pieces of meat, usually mice, moistened in saliva in the palm of our hands.Soon we fed them larger pieces, including fur and bone.On 8 July we found a pellet in the box.After spending a few days in the box, the Kestrels were moved to a homemade bird feeder in the front yard of our home in the country.This afforded them sunlight and allowed them to become accustomed to their surroundings.On 18 and 19 July they flew to nearby spruce trees where they perched most of the day.At that time we offered them food at the feeder more frequently than usual, trying to lure them back.One waited an entire day before returning to the feeder.They begged for food, but were reluctant to fly.It was important that they learn to come to us for food instead of having us take food to them, for they might have flown into the nearby woods and we would never have found them.Because we consistently whistled while offering food to them, they learned to associate food with
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".