Osprey Scavenges Common Murre Carcass in Coastal Washington
Bibliographic record
Abstract
behavior, as this species is strictly nocturnal and difficult to observe.Glue and Hammond (1974, By: Bi'rds 67:361-369) report Long-eared Owls "hovering" seconds before making a kill of a small mammal, but not otherwise.During nocturnal owl and bat surveys, we were frequently able to observe the behavior of several owl species.Here, we report observations of a hovering/hawking approach to aerial feeding by a Long-eared Owl, not previously reported in this species.Observations took place in the boreal forest of northern Ontario, Canada, south of the municipality of Ear Falls.The topography of the area is highly variable, with many lakes, and is dominated by stands of black spruce (Picea mariana) and to a lesser extent jack pine (Pinus banksiana).On 25 June 2001, between 2220-2240 H, we first observed a Long-eared Owl perched on an aspen tree (Populus tremuloides) on the roadside.We confirmed the owl's identification with a flashlight and a pair of binoculars.We were able to approach the bird three times to within 10 m as it perched on various trees.As we tried to find the bird a fourth time, it flew out from the side of the road and began to hover, slowly sweeping back and forth across the road ca 2 m off the ground within 5 m of our vehicle.In the headlights, we were able to observe the owl as it "hawked" moths over a large water puddle in the middle of the road.The moths were large enough to be clearly visible (ca 5.7-6.3cm wingspan), and were later confirmed to be moths of the genus Actius or Smerinthus (Ross 1873, The butterflies and moths of Canada.Rowsell and Hutchison, Toronto, Canada), which had previously been observed in the area.While we watched, the owl captured at least three moths, which were apparently consumed whole.The owl then flew back into the woods in the direction from which it came, and was not seen again that night.Comments on this observation from M.C.Drever and T.D. Nudds were greatly appreciated.We
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".