MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052442285 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.261

Connectivity in piping plovers: Do breeding populations have distinct winter distributions?

2011· article· en· W2052442285 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cheri L. Gratto‐Trevor, Diane L. Amirault‐Langlais, Daniel H. Catlin, Francesca J. Cuthbert, James D. Fraser, Sidney B. Maddock, Erin Roche, François Shaffer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCharadriusPloverGeographyWildlifeEcologyFisherySouth carolinaWaterfowlWildlife managementWildlife refugeHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Resightings of uniquely marked birds from 2001 to 2008 were used to determine winter distributions of 4 breeding populations of a species at risk, the piping plover ( Charadrius melodus ). Although considerable overlap exists, a distinct pattern in winter distributions was evident. Birds originating from eastern Canada wintered farthest north compared to other populations. Most individuals from the United States Great Lakes were found in South Carolina and Georgia in winter, whereas birds from eastern Canada were found primarily in North Carolina. Although the great majority of birds marked in Prairie Canada were observed wintering in Texas, particularly southern Texas, breeding plovers from the United States Great Plains were more widely distributed on the gulf coast from Florida to Texas. Very few large‐scale movements of individuals in winter were reported either within or between years. This study highlights the significance of geographic regions for eastern Canada, the United States Great Lakes, the United States Great Plains, and Prairie Canada populations, and demonstrates relatively high winter site fidelity. This information will help focus conservation efforts for specific breeding populations during the winter. © 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 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations32
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207