MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002306158 · doi:10.1080/00063657.2011.636798

Wintering areas of Great Skuas<i>Stercorarius skua</i>breeding in Scotland, Iceland and Norway

2011· article· en· W2002306158 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ellen Magnúsdóttir, Eliza H. K. Leat, Sophie Bourgeon, Hallvard Strøm, Aevar Petersen, Richard A. Phillips, Sveinn Are Hanssen, Jan Ove Bustnes, Páll Hersteinsson, Robert W. Furness

Bibliographic record

VenueBird Study · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges ForskningsrådUniversity of GlasgowScottish Natural Heritage
KeywordsShetlandGeolocationGeographyBreedEcologyFisheryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Capsule Great Skuas Stercorarius skua breeding in Scotland, Iceland, and Norway, winter in different areas. Aims To assess the winter distribution of adult Great Skuas breeding in different countries. Methods Geolocation data-loggers were deployed on breeding adults at colonies in Shetland (Scotland), southeast Iceland, and Bjørnøya (Norway) in 2008. Loggers were recovered when birds returned to breed the next year and downloaded data were processed to indicate the location of each individual throughout the winter period. Results Adult Great Skuas from Scotland wintered off northwest Africa and southern Europe. Adults from Iceland mostly wintered off Canada, with small numbers visiting northwest Africa and Europe. Although adults from Bjørnøya (Norway) migrated to similar areas to birds from Iceland, a slightly greater proportion wintered off Europe, and most used areas further north than birds from Scotland. Although three birds studied over consecutive winters used the same small area in consecutive years, four moved between different areas within one winter. Conclusion Great Skuas show clear variation in migrations among breeding regions, and some evidence of individual consistency.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations47
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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