Effects of handling stress on Brunnich's Guillemots<i>Uria lomvia</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of various handling procedures on breeding Brunnich's Guillernot Uria lomvia were compared, using the length of time it took for individuals to return to the colony after handling (return time), to indicate the degree of stress imposed. Return times were affected by sex, with males taking longer to return than females. There was no significant effect of experience (age), although experienced males (>7 years old, the largest sample group) tended to have shorter return times than inexperienced males. Only experienced males were used to compare the effects of treatment on return times. Treatments included attachment of depth gauges, blood sampling, and two control groups of birds held for Wand 20 minutes. Return times did not differ significantly among treatments, except for the group that was held for 20 minutes. Return times were significantly correlated with handling times. We conclude that, for experienced male Brunnich's Guillemots, the type of treatment used did not have any significant effect over and above that imposed by the amount of time the bird was held. The results suggest that treatment during handling may not be an important factor determining stress, compared to the effect of capture and the subsequent amount of time spent in captivity.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".