MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1566581116 · doi:10.32800/abc.2004.27.0035

Effects of spring conditions on breeding propensity of Greater Snow Goose females

2004· article· en· W1566581116 on OpenAlexafffund
Eric T. Reed, Gilles Gauthier, Jean‐François Giroux

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Biodiversity and Conservation · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalUniversité du Québec à MontréalEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversité Laval
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)ArcticGooseProductivityBiologySpring (device)BreedSnowAnatidaeEcologyGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breeding propensity, defined as the probability that a sexually mature adult will breed in a given year, is an important determinant of annual productivity. It is also one of the least known demographic parameters in vertebrates. We studied the relationship between breeding propensity and conditions on spring staging areas (a spring conservation hunt) and the breeding grounds (spring snow cover) in Greater Snow Geese (Chen caerulescens atlantica), a long distance migrant that breeds in the High Arctic. We combined information from mark–recapture, telemetry, and nest survey data to estimate breeding propensity over a 7–year period. True temporal variation in breeding propensity was considerable (mean: 0.574 [95 % CI considering only process variation: 0.13 to 1.0]). Spring snow cover was negatively related to breeding propensity (bsnow=-2.05 ± 0.96 SE) and tended to be reduced in years with a spring hunt (b = -0.78 ± 0.35). Nest densities on the breeding colony and fall ratios of young:adults were good indices of annual variation in breeding propensity, with nest densities being slightly more precise. These results suggest that conditions encountered during the pre-breeding period can have a significant impact on productivity of Arctic-nesting 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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations102
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal Biodiversity and ConservationSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207