MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1877872238 · doi:10.1139/z09-132

Trophic relationships of breeding Red-necked Grebes (Podiceps grisegena) on wetlands with and without fish in the Aspen Parkland

2010· article· en· W1877872238 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Caroline E. McParland, Cynthia A. Paszkowski, Jennifer L. Newbrey

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIsotope Analysis in Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrophic levelBiologyPredationEcologyInvertebrateWetlandCompetition (biology)Fishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dietary overlap between waterbirds and fish in many freshwater systems can lead to competition for food resources and changes in the trophic position of top predators. We used stable isotope analysis of carbon and nitrogen from egg tissues to document differences in the trophic position of breeding Red-necked Grebes ( Podiceps grisegena (Boddaert, 1783)) on wetlands with and without fish in the Aspen Parkland of Alberta, Canada. Grebes occupied higher trophic levels in the presence of fish than in their absence, suggesting that small-bodied fish in Aspen Parkland food webs may lengthen food chains in which grebes are top predators. A mixed diet of invertebrates and fishes may be adaptive for grebes in this highly variable ecosystem where fish colonize wetlands in wet years and are extirpated in dry years. Carbon analyses indicated that female grebes likely obtained resources for egg production from breeding sites and not from wintering areas, as eggs had similar δ13C values to wetland primary producers, invertebrates, and fishes.

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 score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicIsotope Analysis in EcologyFrench-language works237,207