MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2076576424 · doi:10.1139/z06-190

Settlement patterns, foraging behavior, and reproductive success of ospreys along a heterogeneous riverine corridor

2007· article· en· W2076576424 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter J. Harmata, Marco Restani, Alan R. Harmata

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsForagingHabitatNest (protein structural motif)PredationBiological dispersalBiologyNettingEcologyFisheryPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1998 and 1999, we determined the spatial distribution, foraging behavior, and reproductive success of ospreys ( Pandion haliaetus (L., 1758)) nesting along the upper Missouri River, Montana. We combined our data with that collected in the same area in 1981–1982 and 1990–1991 to investigate factors influencing settlement patterns. The study area was composed of four distinct habitats, three reservoirs and one free-flowing river section. Although number of occupied nests on each habitat increased from 1981–1982 to 1998–1999, the greatest percentage increases in nest density occurred on habitats previously hypothesized to contain the least prey. Osprey reproductive success was positively related to foraging rates, which differed across habitats, being highest on reservoirs and lowest on the free-flowing river. However, reproductive success was adequate for replacement on each habitat. Most fish consumed by ospreys on each habitat were suckers (Catostomidae), followed by salmonids and cyprinids. Fish density, determined from gill netting, was highest on the largest and shallowest reservoir. Over two decades, ospreys shifted their relative spatial use of the upper Missouri River such that reservoirs were occupied first and the free-flowing river section was occupied last. The degree to which presence of conspecifics, distribution of nest trees and prey, and dispersal affected settlement patterns probably varied by spatial scale.

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 score0.954
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations12
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→