MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013612305 · doi:10.1675/063.035.sp109

Double-Crested Cormorants During the Chick-Rearing Period at a Large Colony in Southern Ontario: Analyses of Chick Diet, Feeding Rates and Foraging Directions

2012· article· en· W2013612305 on OpenAlexaffabout
D. W. Andrews, Gail S. Fraser, D. V. Chip Weseloh

Bibliographic record

VenueWaterbirds · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingCormorantAlewifePredationBiologyPiscivoreNest (protein structural motif)ProductivityFisheryEcologyCompetition (biology)Seasonal breederAnimal scienceZoologyPredator

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the last 25 years, North America has experienced a significant increase in Double-crested Cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus). The increase has caused concern among wildlife and fisheries managers dealing with the perceived and/or real impacts of this bird on fisheries. Cormorant foraging and breeding ecology were examined at a large (>6,000 pairs), unmanaged colony in Lake Ontario, Canada. Chick diet, feeding rates and productivity were evaluated during 2006 and 2007. In 2007, the proportion of adult cormorants making long-range foraging trips (more than ten kilometers) during different stages of the breeding season was estimated. Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) composed greater than 86% of chick diet by mass during both years; suggesting that cormorants did not often prey on sport fish for feeding chicks. Chicks were fed approximately 4.5 times per day in 2006, which was significantly lower than 5.9 feeds per day during 2007. Productivity was high in both years, with 2.2 and 1.9 chicks produced per nest in 2006 and 2007, respectively. The decrease in productivity corresponded with an increase in colony size, from 6,125 to 7,241 pairs. In 2007, approximately one-fifth of the nesting colony foraged at least ten kilometers throughout the breeding season. Cormorants fed their chicks very few sport fish in the Toronto area; however, more work is required to determine whether the consumption of Alewife by cormorants represents competition with sport fish for prey.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterbirdsSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207