Habitat-patch occupancy in the common goldeneye (<i>Bucephala clangula</i>) at different stages of the breeding cycle: implications to ecological processes in patchy environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied the pattern of habitat-patch occupancy of radio-tagged common goldeneye ( Bucephala clangula (L., 1758)) females in two sequential stages of the breeding season, the nest stage and the brood stage, and whether the resources needed in nesting and brood-rearing are spatially inter-related as revealed by patch occupation rate of goldeneye females in these stages. We also studied patch-specific factors potentially explaining the rate of patch occupation separately during the nest stage and the brood stage. There was no association in patch occupation rate between the nest stage and the brood stage, indicating that all the critical resources needed to complete a successful breeding cycle were not met within the same habitat patch. At the nest stage, patch occupation rate increased with nest-site availability and decreased with nest predation rate but was not affected by vegetation luxuriance or patch size. Vegetation luxuriance had a positive effect on patch occupation rate at the brood stage, whereas nesting success of the focal patch had no effect. Results suggest that nest-site selection and brood-stage habitat selection are governed by different ecological factors. We conclude that breeding-stage-specific resource requirements redistributed individuals among habitat patches across the landscape, implying dynamic distribution of ducks between nesting and brooding stage.
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".