MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966030311 · doi:10.1675/063.033.0404

Migration and Winter Movements of Double-Crested Cormorants Breeding in Georgian Bay, Ontario

2010· article· en· W1966030311 on OpenAlexaffabout
Heidi Scherr, Jeff Bowman, Kenneth F. Abraham

Bibliographic record

VenueWaterbirds · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHabitatFisheryBayGeographyPhilopatryAquacultureRange (aeronautics)WaterfowlEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyBiological dispersalDemographyPopulationArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Double-crested Cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) breeding in the Great Lakes and wintering in the southeastern United States were implanted with satellite transmitters to assess their movements. During 2007 and 2008, 26 cormorants from Georgian Bay, Ontario, Canada, were tracked in order to, variously, identify staging areas, characterize migration routes, winter habitat use, and home range size, assess philopatry of returning breeders, and test for a relationship between winter habitat use and arrival at the breeding ground. Females left summer areas earlier and spent more time in staging areas than did males. However, both sexes left the staging areas and arrived in the wintering grounds at approximately the same time. There was no difference in latitude between wintering males and females, or in winter residency time (n = 136 days for both sexes). The predominant winter habitat types were lakes and coasts with only seven of 26 (26.9%) birds wintering on aquaculture sites. Contrary to expectations, winter home ranges of birds on aquaculture sites ( = 2760 km2) were significantly larger than birds on non-aquaculture sites ( = 81 km2). A carryover effect of aquaculture was not detected; winter residency time was similar for birds on both aquaculture and natural winter habitats, with birds from both habitats returning north at the same time. Fidelity to the previous summer's location was observed in 15 of 20 returning individuals.

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 score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.348

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterbirdsSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207