MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Body mass regulation during incubation in female common eiders <i>Somateria mollissima</i>

2002· article· en· W2061827240 on OpenAlexfundno aff
François Criscuolo, Geir Wing Gabrielsen, Jean‐Paul Gendner, Yvon Le Maho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorsk PolarinstituttCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiquePolar Knowledge Canada
KeywordsIncubationEiderBiologyHatchingNest (protein structural motif)Incubation periodEcologyAnimal scienceZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated changes in incubation behaviour induced by body fuel depletion in incubating female common eiders, which, in contrast to pelagic seabirds, fast despite being close to marine food sources. In the Svalbard Archipelago, electronic scales were placed under eider nests and the incubation of six birds was prolonged by using wax‐filled eggs. Based on changes in the rate of body mass loss in normally incubating females and in ten captive birds that did not incubate, body reserves neared depletion on average four days after hatching. During prolonged incubation, females took more frequent and longer recesses. Nest attentiveness consequently decreased, but was still high. In contrast to recesses during normal incubation, during which body mass of the birds decreased, mass remained constant during the recesses of prolonged incubation. The body stores of female eiders seemed to enable them to complete incubation with a limited safety margin. A further drop in body mass is avoided when a critical body mass is reached, because birds then start feeding enough to maintain mass while continuing incubation. Presumably, a similar mechanism will enable eiders to continue incubation when body reserves are prematurely depleted before hatching.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations49
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian BiologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207