Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) density on rivers in southwestern British Columbia in relation to food availability and indirect interactions with fish
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I investigated factors affecting harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus) prey availability on breeding streams in southwestern British Columbia. I measured flow variability, prey availability, harlequin duck breeding density, and quantified fish communities on eight rivers in 2003 and 2004. I found that prey availability was strongly and negatively associated with flow variability. Harlequin duck density was positively associated with prey availability in both years. I found a negative relationship between harlequin ducks breeding density and an index of fish abundance, supporting the existence of a Behaviourally Mediated Indirect Interaction between harlequin ducks and fish, in which prey availability is reduced in fish-bearing streams because insects alter behaviour to reduce vulnerability to fish. This supports the hypothesis that fish introductions into previously fishless rivers has negatively affected prey availability on breeding streams. Such widespread introductions may be contributing to the current low productivity measured in the western North American harlequin duck population.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".