Multistate modeling of brood amalgamation in White–winged Scoters Melanitta fusca deglandi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Multistate modeling of brood amalgamation in White–winged Scoters Melanitta fusca deglandi.— Female waterfowl may lose or abandon offspring shortly after hatch often resulting in the phenomena of post–hatch brood amalgamation (PHBA; Eadie et al., 1988). Potential fitness implications of this behavior has generated considerable debate (Eadie et al., 1988; Pöysä, 1995; Savard et al., 1998) about physiological or ecological costs and benefits to ducklings in amalgamated broods. Several researchers have proposed that PHBA is a result of, but is not limited to, accidental mixing (i.e., accidental mixing hypothesis), initial brood size at hatch (i.e., brood size and success hypotheses), or maternal female condition at hatch (i.e., energetic stress hypothesis) (Eadie et al., 1988; Bustnes & Erikstad, 1991; Pöysä, 1995). We studied PHBA in July and August, 2000–2001, in a population of White–winged Scoters on Redberry Lake, Saskatchewan, (52° 00' N, 107° 10' W), a 4,500 ha federal bird sanctuary and World Biosphere Reserve. Ducklings (n = 265 in 2000 and n = 399 in 2001) were captured in nests at hatch, given a uniquely– colored nape marker for individual identification, and re–observed during daily observation sessions. We were interested primarily in movement probabilities during the first two weeks after hatch, when most travel by ducklings occurs, and after which duckling survival was constant (Traylor, 2003)...
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".