MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1977409130 · doi:10.1080/00063657.2015.1017800

Diving behaviour of benthic feeding Black Guillemots

2015· article· en· W1977409130 on OpenAlexafffund
Akiko Shoji, Kyle H. Elliott, Julian G. Greenwood, L. G. McClean, Kerry Leonard, Chris M. Perrins, Annette L. Fayet, Tim Guilford

Bibliographic record

VenueBird Study · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJapan Student Services Organization
KeywordsBenthic zoneForagingBiologyAllometryFisheryOceanographyEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capsule Dive behaviour in Black Guillemots Cepphus grylle was close to that predicted for a benthic forager by allometry based on body mass.Aims To report the diving behaviour of Black Guillemots in Northern Ireland.Methods A time-depth-recorders and GPS logger were deployed on four chick-rearing breeding Black Guillemots.Results Dive shape implied most dives were benthic with a small number at the start of each bout associated with searching. Diving only occurred during daylight hours, but dive depth was unrelated to light availability outside of the twilight periods. Dive durations (max = 90 s; mean = 54 s) were shorter and dive depths (max = 15 m; mean = 9 m) were shallower than recorded for guillemots elsewhere. The birds dived a maximum of 1.8 km from the colony.Conclusions Black Guillemots' dive duration was similar to the value predicted from allometry, and is therefore likely representative of this species. Bathymetry likely influences the dive behaviour of this benthic-feeding species because most dives were U-shaped and dive depths were shallow, which is typical for the relatively shallow water where the birds were observed foraging.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBird StudySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207