MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2035055797 · doi:10.14430/arctic428

Wintering Areas and Recovery Rates of Brünnich’s Guillemots <i>Uria lomvia</i> Ringed in the Svalbard Archipelago

2010· article· en· W2035055797 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Vidar Bakken, Fridtjof Mehlum

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUria aalgeArchipelagoGeographyPopulationFisheryOceanographyNorwegianEcologyBiologyPredationSeabirdGeologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We mapped wintering areas and estimated the recovery rates of Brünnich’s guillemots (thick-billed murres) ringed in Svalbard during 1954–98. Recoveries were reported from Iceland, Greenland, and Newfoundland. An intensive hunt occurs annually off Greenland and Newfoundland, and more than 95% of the recovered birds were reported as shot. Birds recovered as immatures differed from birds recovered as adults in their temporal and spatial distribution. Immatures were more exposed to hunting because they arrived at the hunting areas earlier in the autumn and formed a higher proportion of the population in hunting areas farthest away from Svalbard. The recovery rate of birds ringed in Svalbard as chicks was comparable to the recovery rate reported from Canada. Interestingly, no Svalbard birds have ever been recovered in the southern part of the Barents Sea or along the Norwegian coast, suggesting that these areas are not important to the Svalbard population. The distribution of winter recoveries of birds ringed in Svalbard was compared to the winter recovery areas of Brünnich’s guillemots ringed elsewhere in the North Atlantic. Only birds ringed in Svalbard have been recovered in Iceland in winter.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.702
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0070.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.225 · 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.

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

Citations16
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207