Turkey Vulture Marking History: the Switch from Leg Bands to Patagial Tags
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In North America, leg bands were applied to 1399 Turkey Vultures (Cathartes aura) prior to computerization of banding records in 1955, and 726 since.The switch to wing or patagial tags on adult vultures began in.1970; it gained momentum after the publication of Henckel (1976), which pointed out that damaging cement-like concretions formed around standard leg bands of any.size.Application of leg bands to adults became uncommon after 1980.A flurry of patagial tag use, as a substitute for leg bands, came almost to a halt after the 1979 season, and then resumed in 1994 -1998, by which time 528 patagial tags or wing streamers had been applied.with many nest sites under observation, to learn the extent of vulture dispersal and their age at first breeding (the only breeder of known age to date was 11 years old; Kirk and Mossman 1998).Patagial tags seemed the obvious answer.The Banding Office stipulated that one person in any new wing-tagging project must visit someone experienced in applying patagial tags, observe that person applying a tag, and then apply a tag under supervision.PHB offered this service in California in Jun 2003 to Brenton Terry, a subpermittee of CSH.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".