The Body Size-Dependent Diet Composition of North American Sea Ducks in Winter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Daily food requirements scale with body mass and activity in animals. While small species of birds have higher mass-specific field metabolic rates than larger species, larger species have higher absolute energy costs. Under energy balance, we thus expect the small species to have a higher energy value diet. Also the weight and time constraints for flighted and diurnal foragers should set a maximum to the amount of prey items taken in one meal and to the daily number of meals, respectively. Further, avoidance of competition causes the species to reduce the amount of shared prey in their diet. Some diet segregation is therefore to be expected between species. We tested these hypotheses and investigated the role of body mass in the diet composition of 12 sea duck species (Somateria mollissima, Somateria spectabilis, Somateria fischeri, Polysticta stelleri, Bucephala clangula, Bucephala islandica, Bucephala albeola, Melanitta nigra, Melanitta perspicillata, Melanitta deglandi, Histrionicus histrionicus and Clangula hyemalis) wintering in North America. This study was based on a literature survey with special emphasis given to the diet data from the former US Bureau of Biological Survey. The data supported our hypothesis that the energy value of winter diet of sea ducks scales negatively with body mass. Diet diversity also scaled negatively with body mass. Our results suggest the existence of a minimum for the energy value of avian diets.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".