MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1578368507 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v121i1.395

First Confirmed Breeding of the Marbled Godwit, <em>Limosa fedoa</em>, in Québec

2007· article· fr· W1578368507 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
François Morneau, Benoit Gagnon, Sidney Whiskeychan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsHydro-Québec
FundersHydro-Québec
KeywordsBayGeographyPopulationForestryNest (protein structural motif)FisheryHumanitiesBiologyArtDemographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were to confirm breeding of the Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa) in Rupert Bay, on the Québec coast of James Bay, and to assess population abundance. Nest search was conducted 17–20 June 2003, using several techniques. Two nests were found in the high marsh of Cabbage Willows Bay: these are the first confirmed breeding records of this species in Québec. The Rupert Bay region probably holds a breeding population of no more than a few dozen pairs.Cette étude visait à confirmer la reproduction de la Barge marbrée (Limosa fedoa) dans la baie de Rupert située sur la côte est de la Baie James (Québec) et à estimer l’abondance de la population. Une recherche de nids a été réalisée entre le 17 et le 20 juin 2003 à l’aide de différentes techniques. Deux nids ont été découverts dans le haut marais de la baie Cabbage Willows. Ils confirment pour la première fois le statut nicheur de cette espèce au Québec. La région de la baie de Rupert abrite probablement une population nicheuse d’au plus quelques douzaines de couples.

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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.278

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207