Evaluation of nasal discs and colored leg bands as markers for Harlequin Ducks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated nasal discs and colored leg bands for Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) wintering in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, by comparing marker visibility and life span, and determining effects of nasal discs on behavior and pairing. Proportions resighted and frequency of sightings were higher for individuals marked with nasal discs than for those marked only with leg bands. Nasal disc loss followed a logistic function that predicted 50% loss by 396 d. Due to wear of leg bands, number of sightings per individual decreased with leg band age following a cubic function. We detected no effects of nasal discs on time spent in various behaviors, timing of pairing, or female pairing success. However, males with nasal discs had lower pairing success, and females with nasal discs were less likely to reunite with previous mates. We speculate that the effect of nasal discs on male pairing success may be due to a male-biased sex ratio and sexual selection on male appearance. Leg band wear should be considered for demographic models because its effects can violate assumptions and bias sighting and survival estimates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".