Sex-specific intertidal habitat use in subtropically wintering Bar-tailed Godwits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habitat use by sexually dimorphic Bar-tailed Godwits (Limosa lapponica) was examined in an Australian estuary during the midwintering (NovemberDecember) and premigratory (March) periods of a nonbreeding season. In an area with two available habitats, Zostera seagrass beds and unvegetated sand flats, males occurred almost exclusively in seagrass, whereas the females occurred at equal densities in both habitats. Estimates of intake rates seemed greater for individuals foraging in seagrass (0.1140.128 g dry mass (DM)·min1) than on sand (0.0640.087 g DM·min1). Males appeared less well adapted for foraging on sand than in seagrass, and the presence of females could interfere with males' foraging on sand. The reason for the equal distribution of the females between the habitats probably lies in the inability of one particular habitat to support the entire population of females. Little interhabitat movement by individuals was detected. Within a habitat, sexes moved synchronously at the 1-ha scale but showed a degree of segregation at the individual scale, suggesting that some avoidance existed. Three diet types were observed in the godwits in the area: (1) dominated by soldier crabs (Mictyris longicarpus) on sand, (2) dominated by sentinel crabs (Macrophthalmus spp.) in seagrass, and (3) dominated by soft-bodied prey in seagrass.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".