MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062594176 · doi:10.1139/z05-085

Time budget and diving behaviour of chick-rearing Crozet shags

2005· article· en· W2062594176 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yann Tremblay, Timothée R. Cook, Y Cherel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingCormorantFisheryBenthic zoneNeutral buoyancyDescent (aeronautics)BiologySeabirdEnvironmental scienceDiel vertical migrationEcologyOceanographyGeographyPredationMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Blue-eyed shags are known to be capable of the deepest dives in the cormorant family. Yet, the way these birds balance their energy and time budgets remains enigmatic. Using ventrally attached time–depth recorders on chick-rearing Crozet shags (Phalacrocorax melanogenis Blyth, 1860), we simultaneously described their time budget and diving behaviour. Crozet shags are diurnal, benthic foragers (mean foraging range 1.7 km) that spend 37% of the daytime at sea. While at sea, they spend 49% of their time on the water, 44% diving, and 7% flying, and consume mainly benthic nototheniid fish. Larger fish (>20 g) were caught at shallower depths during shorter trips. They made, on average, 4.4 trips/day, each including 2.5 diving periods of 14 dives. On average, Crozet shags dove to 28 m (max. 145 m) for 2 min 2 s (max. 6 min 11 s). Descent and ascent rates became less variable at a depth of 40 m, possibly owing to a change in bird relative buoyancy at that depth. Ten percent of dives exceeded the estimated behavioural aerobic dive limit (4 min) and diving depths showed a bimodal distribution at <5 and ~18 m for dives lasting ~1 min. This dive duration corresponded to dives with higher dive duration/postdive interval ratios. The Crozet shags managed their dive cycle to fully exploit their breathing capacities, thus optimizing foraging performance.

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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

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)0.0050.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations52
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207