MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098901266 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v119i4.185

Use of Radio-Telemetry to Test for Investigator Effects on Nesting Mallards, <em>Anas platyrhynchos</em>

2005· article· en· W2098901266 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Terri D. Thorn, Robert B. Emery, David W. Howerter, James H. Devries, Brian L. Joynt

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsDucks Unlimited Canada
FundersInstitute for Wetland and Waterfowl Research, Ducks Unlimited CanadaNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation
KeywordsAnasNest (protein structural motif)TelemetryHatchingBiologyEcologyFisheryZoologyAnimal scienceEngineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the effects of investigator activity on hatching rates of radio-marked wild female Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), and evaluated the efficacy of radio-telemetry to minimize nest disturbance, characterize vegetation at nest sites, and mark nests for later relocation. Differences in hatching rates between birds that were flushed once (experimental) and those never flushed (control) approached significance (P = 0.086). However, hatching rates did not differ (P = 0.588) between the two groups when nests where investigator activity caused abandonment (30% of experimental nests) were removed from analysis. If the nest remained active, flushing the bird and visiting the nest once did not appear to increase the likelihood of the nest being depredated. We were able to locate 92% of radio-telemetry marked nests (control) after the female was no longer tending the nest. Radio-telemetry provides a technique to collect relatively unbiased nesting data for Mallards without disturbing the female.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207