MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7084767427 · doi:10.5061/dryad.z08kprrgj

Data from: Combined effects of cold snaps and agriculture on the growth rates of Tree Swallows (<em>Tachycineta bicolor</em>)

2024· dataset· en· W7084767427 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen MIND · 2024
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral-associated cancers and disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInsectivoreFledgeForagingAgricultureHibernation (computing)Guild

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decline of avian aerial insectivores has been greater than any other foraging guild and both climate change and agricultural intensification are leading hypotheses explaining this decline. Spring cold snaps are predicted to increase in frequency due to climate change, and factors associated with agricultural intensification (e.g., toxicological agents, simplification of agricultural landscapes, and reductions of insect prey) potentially exacerbate the negative effects of cold snaps on aerial insectivore nestling growth and body condition. We evaluated this hypothesis using repeated measures of Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor (Vieillot, 1808)) nestling body mass and 9th primary length across an expansive gradient of agricultural intensification. Growth rate, asymptotic body mass, and near-fledging 9th primary length were lower for nestlings in landscapes consisting of more agro-intensive monocultures. This 14-year dataset of body measures occurring at 2, 6, 12, and 16 days of age showed that the negative impact of cold snaps on the growth of these two traits was stronger for nestlings reared in more agro-intensive landscapes. Our findings provide further evidence that two of the primary hypothesized drivers for the decline of many aerial insectivores may interact and aggravate their decline by reducing fledging survival.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.016

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen MIND→Same topicViral-associated cancers and disorders→French-language works237,207→