Trends in volume migration chronology in spring staging Pacific black brant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We used a robust dataset of count and mark‐resighting data for Pacific black brant from 1989–2004, and a novel mark‐recapture model capable of analyzing such data, to calculate the annual variability and timing of brant as they migrated through the Parksville–Qualicum Beach area, a traditional spring staging site in coastal British Columbia, Canada. Our analysis indicated that the date of departure from this site to northern breeding sites advanced between 10 and 20 days over this period because of a combination of earlier arrival and shorter residence times. Given this change in migration behavior, and the potential implications for population dynamics, we recommend that targeted research on brant wintering, migration, and reproductive strategies should be examined within a greater Pacific‐wide context. In this way, the consequences of proximate factors (e.g., disturbance, food, and climate) can be understood in terms of individual fitness and population dynamics. Finally, at the local level, conservation actions are needed to ensure the long term sustainability of Parksville–Qualicum Beach as an important spring staging site for Pacific black brant. © 2011 The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".