MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1841225849 · doi:10.1007/s10144-015-0511-4

Apparent annual survival of staging ruffs during a period of population decline: insights from sex and site‐use related differences

2015· article· en· W1841225849 on OpenAlexaff
Lucie E. Schmaltz, Cédric Juillet, Joost M. Tinbergen, Yvonne I. Verkuil, Joslyn Corstiaan Elbert Wouter Hooijmeijer, Theunis Piersma

Bibliographic record

VenuePopulation Ecology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsTrent University
FundersGratama StichtingRijksuniversiteit Groningen
KeywordsPopulationDemographyBiologyRange (aeronautics)Mark and recapturePopulation declineEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ruff Philomachus pugnax , a lekking shorebird wintering in Africa and breeding across northern Eurasia, declined severely in its western range. Based on a capture‐mark‐resighting programme (2004–2011) in the westernmost staging area in Friesland (the Netherlands), we investigated changes in apparent annual survival in relation to age and sex to explore potential causes of decline. We also related temporal variation in apparent survival to environmental factors. We used the Capture‐Mark‐Recapture multievent statistical framework to overcome biases in survival estimates after testing for hidden heterogeneity of detection. This enabled the estimation of the probability to belong to high or low detectability classes. Apparent survival varied between years but was not related to weather patterns along the flyway, or to flood levels in the Sahel. Over time, a decline in apparent survival is suggested. Due to a short data series and flag loss in the last period this cannot be verified. Nevertheless, the patterns in sex‐specific detectability and survival lead to new biological insights. Among highly detectable birds, supposedly most reliant on Friesland, males survived better than females ( = 0.74, range 0.51–0.93; = 0.51, range 0.24–0.81). Among low detectable birds, the pattern is reversed ( = 0.64, range 0.37–0.89; = 0.73, range 0.48–0.93). Probably the staging population contains a mixture of sex‐specific migration strategies. A loss of staging females could greatly affect the dynamics of the western ruff population. Further unravelling of these population processes requires geographically extended demographic monitoring and the use of tracking devices.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePopulation EcologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207