Habitat constraints and spatial bias in seabird colony distributions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What governs the size and location of seabird colonies has long intrigued population ecologists. Previous analysis of the distribution of colonies of four European seabirds revealed a spatial bias ‐ large colonies occurred farther apart than expected by chance alone ‐ suggesting that intraspecific competition for food supplies during breeding may regulate colony size. Here we use computer intensive statistics to show that a similar spatial bias exists in three burrow‐nesting seabirds ‐ Cassin's auklet Ptychoramphus aleuticus , rhinoceros auklet Cerorhinca monoccrata , and ancient murrelet Synthliboramphus antiquns ‐ nesting off the Pacific coast of Canada. Local habitat constraints explain much of the existing spatial bias: large colonies cannot fit on small islands, and large islands suitable for colonies tended to occur far apart. However, a residual spatial bias still remained for ancient murrelets and Cassin's auklets (but not rhinoceros auklets) after habitat constraints are built into the analysis, for which intraspecific food competition remains a plausible explanation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".