Comparative Morphology Among Three Northern Populations of Breeding Cooper's Hawks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cooper's Hawk (Accipiter cooperii) is designated as threatened, rare, or species of concern by several state and provincial governments in the United States and \nCanada. However, informed management of this species across its broad North \nAmerican range is hampered by a paucity of data on its nesting biology and biogeographic distribution. Conservation agencies currently cannot identify individual \npopulations or understand the extent of eco-variation in phenotypes that may exist in \ndifferent Cooper's Hawk breeding populations across the continent. I studied differences \nin morphological characteristics of nesting Cooper's Hawks in the eastern deciduous \nforests of Wisconsin, isolated drainage woodlands in short grass prairies of North Dakota, \nand the coniferous forests of British Columbia, Canada; a longitudinal span of 2700 km. \nI measured body mass, wing chord; .tail length, tarsus diameter, hallux length, and culmen \nlength in captured nesting adults. In this study, Cooper's Haw~ populations exhibited \nsignificant variation in several of these morphological across sites including body mass; \nwhen body mass was used as a covariate in ANCOV A several morphological \ncharacteristics still differed among study sites. These data suggest that there is little gene \nflow among populations so discernable morphological differences appear to persist. I \nspeculate that these differences are adaptive and, in part, the result of geographic \nisolation, where diets, migratory behavior, and/or structural characteristics of nesting \nhabitats vary across landscape types.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".