Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Survival rates of waterfowl during wing molt have rarely been described, leading to uncertainty about the importance of this annual cycle stage for management. We quantified survival probability of 247 radiomarked female harlequin ducks ( Histrionicus histrionicus ) during wing molt in Prince William Sound, Alaska, USA. The daily survival rate (DSR) was extremely high (DSR = 0.999; 95% CI: 0.994‐1.000) during the 37‐day interval over which remiges were replaced and individuals were rendered flightless. Our DSR estimate corresponded to a cumulative survival probability of 0.99 (95% CI: 0.81‐1.00) for the 20 August—15 October postbreeding period as a whole, which is appreciably higher than estimates that have been derived for breeding or overwintering stages. We conclude that wing molt is a comparatively safe stage of the annual cycle for harlequin ducks that does not constrain population growth rate, with the implication for wildlife managers being that, in the absence of anthropogenic influences, management prescriptions may be most effective when focused on other stages of the annual cycle.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".