MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7066758107

Individual Variation in Behavior Among Male Blue Grouse

2024· article· en· W7066758107 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicParticle Detector Development and Performance
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKillam TrustsUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsNucleofectionGestational periodTSG101DysgeusiaLiquationDiafiltrationEmperipolesisTriacetinDurvalumab
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Individual variation in behavior among male Blue Grouse Martin K, McNlcho!! Ornithologists, and banders in particular, studying populations of birds in the wild are frequently impressed by individual variations in behavior, with certain individuals consistently acting in a manner different from other conspecifics of the same sex and age.As noted by Thomson {1964}, such variability might be expected to be even greater than morphological variation, as behavior may be determined by genetics, experience, or both.Indeed, variation to an individual level is documented well for some behavioral components, such as ca]] notes and song {e.g.Falls 1969; Beer 1970; Falls and McNicho]] in press}.Yet, few behavior studies stress such variability, except in relation to such practica] problems as trapability {e.g.Doan 1976; Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1977}, band removal affecting population estimates, longevity data and other information based on banding returns {Wiseman 1977}, and persistent difficulty of feeding some individuals in captivity {Berry 1975}.Studies, such as those by Kennard {1894}, Lockley {1940}, 'and Partridge {1976}, emphasizing individual variation in behavior, are relatively few.The current development of fast and efficient methods of analyzing large volumes of numerical data make the quantification of behavior both valuable and tempting.Yet behavior patterns are rarely so stereotyped as to allow ready tabulations without loss of qualitative information.Knowledge of individual variation, however, does allow quantification of behavior with considerable confidence.For example, 13 male Blue Grouse (Dendragapus obscurus) on Vancouver Island, British Columbia showed distinct differences in responses to playbacks of taped hooting (the song of Blue Grouse), at the boundaries of their territories in 1973 (Tables I and2).Nevertheless, by combining several behavioral parameters, J.B. Falls and I were able to demonstrate that each individual showed less response to the songs of neighbors from the correct direction than to songs of other individuals (Falls and McNicholl in press).All but one of these birds were color-banded, enabling us to confirm individual identity.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.172 · 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.

Study designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida)Same topicParticle Detector Development and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207