WINTER PHILOPATRY OF HARLEQUIN DUCKS IN PRINCE WILLIAM SOUND, ALASKA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used capture-mark-recapture data to assess winter philopatry by Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) in Prince William Sound, Alaska, during winters 1995–1997 and 2000–2001. Philopatry was quantified using homing rates, which were estimated as the proportion of birds recaptured at their original site out of all recaptured birds. Between-year homing rates of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.87–1.00) and 1.00 (0.92–1.00) were estimated for females and males, respectively, at three locations on Montague Island. Similar homing rates were measured in western Prince William Sound, where estimates were 0.92 (0.80–0.98) for females and 0.96 (0.79–1.00) for males, with a scale of detected movements for all recapture birds ranging from 3–52 km. Our results indicate that wintering aggregations may be demographically independent at a much finer spatial scale than genetic data indicate, and that conservation efforts should recognize this degree of demographic separation among population segments. Filopatría Invernal de Histrionicus histrionicus en Prince William Sound, Alaska Resumen. Utilizamos datos de marcaje y recaptura para determinar la filopatría de Histrionicus histrionicus en Prince William Sound, Alaska, durante los inviernos de 1995–1997 y 2000–2001. La filopatría fue cuantificada utilizando la tasa de retorno, estimada a partir de la proporción del total de aves capturadas que se recapturaron en su sitio original. Las tasas de retorno entre años, estimadas en tres localidades en la isla Montague, fueron de 0.95 (95% IC: 0.87–1.00) y 1.00 (0.92–1.00) para hembras y machos, respectivamente. En Prince William Sound se midieron tasas de retorno similares, donde las estimaciones fueron 0.92 (0.80– 0.98) para las hembras y 0.96 (0.79–1.00) para los machos, y para todas las aves recapturadas se detectó una escala de movimiento entre 3 y 52 km. Nuestros resultados indican que las agrupaciones de invierno pueden ser demográficamente independientes a una escala espacial mucho más fina de lo que los datos genéticos indican, y que los esfuerzos de conservación deberían reconocer este grado de separación demográ fica entre segmentos de poblaciones.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".