Do nest exclosures affect the behaviour of Piping Plovers (<i>Charadrius</i><i>melodus melodus</i>) and their predators?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predators are a threat to many ground-nesting shorebirds; however, nest exclosures are a tool used by managers to reduce nest predation. Others have found that nest exclosures increase hatching success, but there has been concern that they may also increase adult mortality and nest abandonment. We examined the effects of nest exclosures on the behaviour of incubating Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus melodus Ord, 1824) and their predators on nesting beaches in eastern Canada. Using a combination of field observations, video monitoring, and an artificial nest experiment, we found that adult incubation behaviour did not differ between exclosed and unexclosed nests. Predators, however, visited exclosed nests more often than unexclosed nests and spent more time in the vicinity of exclosed nests than unexclosed nests at one of our sites. These findings suggest that concerns over increased adult mortality and nest abandonment are plausible and require further study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".