MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7113392623

Loafing and Sleeping Behaviour of Trumpeter Swans

2025· article· W7113392623 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial loafingDuration (music)Sleep (system call)RuminatingPredationRight hemisphereSouthern Hemisphere
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An observational study of loafing and sleeping behaviour of Trumpeter Swans was conducted in southern Ontario throughout the year in 2018 and 2019. Like other birds, these swans have the ability to close down one brain hemisphere at a time during rest, which is indicated by eye closure. We quantified rates of closure of eyes during sleeping bouts for both breeding and non-breeding swans. Single eye closure varied in frequency, duration and in terms of which hemisphere was shut down. Increasing duration of eye closure over time indicated an increased sense of security with surrounding in one mated pair. Proportion of time with both eyes closed during sleep differed significantly between breeding and non-breeding swans, which may reflect security related to social status. Unlike ducks, which "peek" during sleeping, Trumpeters raised their head briefly during sleep bouts, likely in response to auditory stimuli. Both “peeking” (precautionary vigilance) and “head up” behaviour (reactionary vigilance) are adaptations to predation risk. There is much still to be learned about sleep behaviour in swans and other birds.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida)Same topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207