MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063358408 · doi:10.1002/wsb.127

Evaluation of a clutch‐containment method during hatch in geese: Using resident Canada geese as an example

2012· article· en· W2063358408 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Katherine B. Guerena, Paul M. Castelli, Theodore C. Nichols, Christopher K. Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Delaware
KeywordsHatchlingBrantaWaterfowlNest (protein structural motif)WildlifeBiologyAvian clutch sizeAnatidaeGooseEcologyAmerican minkFisheryZoologyHatchingReproductionHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Disruption associated with nest visits during the hatch period of waterfowl can cause partial abandonment of hatchlings, potentially causing bias in the survival of marked birds. We evaluated the use of a mesh clutch‐containment bag to capture and mark entire broods of 151 resident Canada goose ( Branta canadensis ) nests, prior to hatch, while minimizing observer‐caused disruption during brooding. The study was conducted in New Jersey, USA, from April to June 2010. No differences were found in hatch success or the number of hatchlings marked between contained clutches and the control group. Although this technique was not beneficial in studying gosling survival in temperate nesting populations, it may be effective in sub‐Arctic nesting conditions where nest visits are conducted using a more invasive approach such as a helicopter. © 2012 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.947
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207