The private lives of birds: a scientist reveals the intricacies of avian social life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The social behavior of birds is a hot topic. (A simple Google search retrieved more than a million entries.) Here, biologist Stutchbury (York Univ., Canada; coauthor with E. S. Morton, Behavioral Ecology of Tropical Birds, CH, Jan'02, 39-2801) concentrates on experimental studies in the field rather than the laboratory, and she salts her text with enough personal anecdotes to hold the undergraduate or general reader's interest. The topics include most aspects of reproductive behavior: mating systems, mate fidelity, birdsong, parental investment, territory, and communal nesting along with a fascinating digression into migration. The strength of the book is Stutchbury's efforts to explain actual experiments (many her own) and the ways they shed light on natters such as conservation. Occasionally, the author packs in too many examples for a lay reader, and one might wish for a few more cautions that birds and humans are really quite different cognitively. But overall, this work strikes a good balance between scientific and popular writing. Data are scant; the books has only a few graphs or tables. The volume provides references grouped by chapter and a good index and will be useful as supplemental reading for an undergraduate course in ornithology or animal behavior. Summing Up: Recommended. All levels/libraries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.005 |
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".