Phenology and duration of remigial moult in Surf Scoters (<i>Melanitta perspicillata</i>) and White-winged Scoters (<i>Melanitta fusca</i>) on the Pacific coast of North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By quantifying phenology and duration of remigial moult in Surf Scoters ( Melanitta perspicillata (L., 1758)) and White-winged Scoters ( Melanitta fusca (L., 1758)), we tested whether timing of moult is dictated by temporal optima or constraints. Scoters (n = 3481) were captured during moult in Alaska, British Columbia, and Washington, and remigial emergence dates were determined. We provide evidence for a pre-emergence interval of 7.3 days that occurs after old primaries are shed and before new ones become visible. All age and sex classes of both scoter species exhibited a wide range of emergence dates (Surf Scoters: 26 June to 22 September; White-winged Scoters: 6 July to 21 September) suggestive of a lack of strong temporal optima for remigial moult. For both species, timing of moult was influenced by site, year, age, and sex. Relative to other waterfowl species, scoters have typical remigial growth rates (Surf Scoters: 3.9 mm·day–1; White-winged Scoters: 4.3 mm·day–1) but a long flightless period (34–49 days), in part because their relatively high wing-loading requires a greater proportion of feather regrowth to regain flight. Our data suggest that moulting scoters are not under strong selective pressure to complete moult quickly.
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".