Response of double‐crested cormorants to a large‐scale egg oiling experiment on Lake Huron
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We report on a management experiment examining the effects of large‐scale egg oiling on double‐crested cormorant nest abundance and measures of seasonal cormorant density (bird‐days/km2) from 2000 to 2005. We employed the staircase design to distinguish transient responses to management treatments from site and year effects that generally contribute to variation in populations. The response to egg oiling in Georgian Bay was as expected with a decline in nest abundance attributable to egg oiling. In the North Channel, nest abundance did not decline because of egg oiling but increased, reflecting either retention of nesting adults or recruitment to colonies. This surprising outcome may stem from fish escapement from pen rearing facilities in the vicinity of the oiling experiment in the North Channel. We observed no effect of egg oiling on the July–August seasonal density of cormorants. The strongest effect size was associated with site effects followed by year effects for nest abundance and seasonal density. The effect size of egg oiling on variation in nest abundance did not exceed 5% for any year in both the North Channel and Georgian Bay. Fish pen culture appears to affect coastal distribution of cormorants. © 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".