MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1771863635

Fuel stores of juvenile waders on autumn migration in high arctic Canada

2002· article· en· W1771863635 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Åke Lindström, Marcel Klaassen, Theunis Piersma, Noél Holmgren, Liv Wennerberg

Bibliographic record

VenueKNAW research portal (Royal Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW)) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalidrisWaderArcticJuvenileSandpiperSeasonal breederBiologyPloverEcologyFisheryGeographyPredationHabitat
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about the fuel stores that arctic-breeding waders put on before departure from the breeding grounds. During a ship-based expedition to arctic Canada, we caught waders at seven, mainly coastal sites, within 68degrees-76degreesN and 139degrees-67degreesW, from 28 July to 31 August 1999. More than two hundred waders of twelve species were trapped, mainly White-rumped Calidris fuscicollis, Semipalmated C. pusilla, Baird's C. bairdii and Buff-breasted Sandpipers Tryngites subruficollis. The vast majority of the birds were juveniles. Body masses and visual fat stores were low, close to the lowest values found anywhere during the non-breeding season for the different species. The relatively fattest birds were Buff-breasted Sandpipers, but they were still far from their maximum body mass on spring migration. We conclude that juvenile arctic waders depart from their natal areas with only small fuel stores, which is in concordance with a time-minimising migration strategy. [KEYWORDS: migration; waders; body mass; fuel deposition; arctic Canada]

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)0.000
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 score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKNAW research portal (Royal Academy of Art and Sciences (KNAW))Same topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207