Nesting and Food of the Barn Owl (tyro Alba) in Hampshire County, Massachusetts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Starlings nesting at Churchill, Manttoba.--Themost northerly point in North America, except for Greenland, where the Starling (Sturnus vulgaris) has been reported is Churchill, Manitoba, on Hudson Bay at 58 ø 45 • north latitude.The Starling was first seen here by Ralph S. Palmer in June, 1940, when he found an individual but no evidence of nesting (1941, Canadian Field-Naturalist, 55: 52).In the summer of 1952 several pairs nested successfully at Churchill.On June 8 and June 11, I watched at least four pairs feeding young.I was not able to climb to the nests, but from the calls of the young at the approach of the adults, I judged they were almost ready to leave.So when I found no Starlings near the nests on June 14, I concluded the young had left.A number of immatures were noted in a flock of about 60 Starlings seen in the vicinity by Mrs. Eva Beckett on June 24 and on several occasions thereafter.The nests were located under the conveyor, which slants upward from the base of the grain elevator to the ship-loading dock.This conveyor is completely enclosed, but the corrugated siding does not fit snugly to the supporting girders at all points.Here, between the siding and the girders at estimated heights of 60 to 70 feet, the Starlings find cavities suitable for nests.--HARoI,D MAYF•I,D, Z557 Portsmouth Ave., Toledo 13, Ohio.Nesting and Food of the Barn Owl (Tyro alba) in Hampshire County, Massachusetts.--Barn Owls were discovered breeding on the administration building of Mount Holyoke College in the summer of 1951.The four young had left the 'nest' by the second week of September.This means that the eggs had been laid early in June, since the incubation period is 30 days (Wallace, 1948) and it takes approximately two months for the nestlings to reach the stage where they are able to fly from their nesting quarters (Bagg and Eliot, 1937).From the fall of 1950 to the spring of 1951, 28 Barn Owl pellets had been collected in a nearby section of the campus and especially near an old, no-longer used schoolhouse, located directly west of the administration building.Possibly the birds had roosted there, and when the building was demolished in the spring of 1950, they sought refuge in the nearest available building.According to Campbell (1952) the pair of Barn Owls that was located in Belchertown in the summer of 1951 established the third known breeding record for western Massachusetts.However, since their eggs failed to hatch, the rearing of young owls in South Hadley constitutes the third successful breeding record for this area.The nesting site was on the front balcony of the third story, a site very similar to that described by Phillips (1951).The balcony faced west, and the portion used for the nest was approximately 8 feet by 1 foot.After the young had left the nest, it was found that the floor was covered to a depth of 15 inches with bones, fur, and fecal remains, but no whole pellets were present.This material was collected and later analyzed.Wallace (1948) noted that the female Barn Owl deliberately breaks up the regurgitated pellets to form a nest for her offspring.Although their decomposition is accelerated by rain, they may remain whole for 8 to 10 weeks (Wilson, 1938).Thus the absence of entire pellets in the nesting debris of the present study was not surprising, since it had been accumulating over a period of at least three months.The 28 Barn Owl pellets that had been previously collected were also analyzed.They were oval and black, and seven of them, after having been stored for several months, averaged 7.6 grams in weight with a range of 3 to 11 grams.Wallace (1948) recorded an average dry weight of 6.8 grams for the 254 pellets he examined.The average dimensions of the pellets were 65.6 mm. by 32.7 mm., and they ranged 42:21 1954
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".