MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016850228 · doi:10.2193/2005-776

Survival of Breeding Pacific Common Eiders on the Yukon‐Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska

2007· article· en· W2016850228 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather Wilson‐Robles, Paul L. Flint, Christine L. Moran, Abby N. Powell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeltaBiologySemelparity and iteroparityPredationReproductionMark and recaptureEcologyPopulationGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Populations of Pacific common eiders ( Somateria mollissima v‐nigrum ) breeding in Alaska, USA, have declined markedly over the past 40 years. We studied survival of adult female Pacific common eiders using capture—recapture of nesting hens at 3 sites on the Yukon‐Kuskokwim Delta (YKD), Alaska from 1994 to 2004. We used data consisting of 268 recapture events from 361 uniquely marked individuals to investigate temporal, geographic, and environmental variation in adult female survival. Our results suggest apparent annual survival of adult eiders from the YKD was high (0.892, SE = 0.022) and spatially and temporally invariant (σ 2 = 0.005), a pattern consistent with other long‐lived marine birds. Moreover, our results suggest adult survival may be functionally fixed for Pacific common eiders, and at the present, adult survival may be relatively unresponsive to environmental or management perturbations. Our data did not support hypothesized variation in survival relative to mortality factors such as predation on breeding grounds, physiologic costs of reproduction, and wintering conditions. Although changes in adult survival likely have a large potential effect on prospective population growth, our results suggest viable management actions aimed at increasing survival may be extremely limited.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207