MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Distribution patterns and population trends of breeding seabirds in the Aleutian Islands

2005· article· en· W1987509707 on OpenAlexaff
G. Vernon Byrd, Heather M. Renner, Martin Renner

Bibliographic record

VenueFisheries Oceanography · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurrowSeabirdHabitatForagingPredationEcologyArchipelagoPopulationNest (protein structural motif)FisheryBiologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The 1800‐km‐long Aleutian Archipelago is a breeding area for more than 10 million seabirds of 26 species. We evaluated the distribution of breeding colonies of 24 common breeding species in relationship to ocean passes of two sizes, availability of nesting habitat and the distribution of introduced predatory mammals. Further, we evaluated population trends and reproductive rates to amplify information about distribution. We compared distributions and demographic parameters based on proposed differences in marine habitats in the eastern, central and western Aleutians. Samalga Pass did not appear to be a break point for breeding seabird distribution as is suggested for oceanographic characteristics and other species groups by papers in this volume. Factors affecting distribution varied with foraging and nesting strategies of various species groups. The three largest breeding aggregations of seabirds in the Aleutians (Buldir, Chagulak and Kiska) all have relatively high species diversity and are located next to large passes. However, when other predictors were considered, proximity to medium or large passes was important mainly for surface‐feeding piscivores. The extent of nesting habitat apparently does not limit the distribution of surface‐ or burrow‐nesting species (including planktivores and piscivores). Instead, the distribution of these species probably has been shaped by introduced mammals. Nesting habitat for ledge‐ and crevice‐nesting species is more limited than for surface and burrow nesters but is still fairly widespread. Ledge‐ and crevice‐nesting species are less susceptible to fox predation than are surface and burrow nesters. These species may have been reduced by predation but were not extirpated.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.519

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations74
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFisheries OceanographySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207