MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083005699 · doi:10.1676/07-091.1

Differences in growth of Black Brant goslings between a major breeding colony and outlying breeding aggregations

2008· article· en· W2083005699 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher A. Nicolai, James S. Sedinger, Michael L. Wege

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Journal of Ornithology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsBroodBiologyBiological dispersalEcologyPopulationAnatidaeDeltaZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We compared growth rates of Black Brant (Branta bernicla nigricans) goslings from two dispersed nesting aggregations to those from the large Tutakoke River Colony on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska during summers, 1999 and 2000. Approximately 20% of the Black Brant population on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska nests outside of the four major colonies. Dispersal to these outlying breeding locations is hypothesized as a mechanism by which individuals reduce the negative effects of density dependence associated with major colonies. Growth rates of goslings varied among brood rearing areas both associated with dispersed nesting aggregations (n = 4) and associated with the Tutakoke River Colony (n = 7). Mean mass of goslings, adjusted for age, from brood rearing areas associated with dispersed nesting aggregations ranked sixth, eighth, and ninth of nine brood rearing areas sampled in 1999, and sixth and ninth of nine brood rearing areas sampled in 2000. Mean age-adjusted mass of goslings with the largest mass were 198 and 139 g lighter, respectively, from brood rearing areas associated with a dispersed nesting aggregation than those from brood rearing areas associated with the Tutakoke River colony in 1999 and 2000. Our findings suggest that goslings from dispersed nesting aggregations we sampled are unlikely to have an advantage over goslings from a major colony with respect to survival, adult body size, and recruitment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.212 · 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.

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

Citations10
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wilson Journal of OrnithologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207