NEST-SITE SELECTION, INTERSPECIFIC ASSOCIATIONS, AND NEST SUCCESS OF KING EIDERS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigated factors influencing nest success in King Eiders (Somateria spectabilis) at Karrak Lake, Nunavut, Canada, during 1995–2001. Island-nesting King Eiders had higher nest success (range 30–89%) than that reported for mainland-nesting populations, and nested at much higher densities (46–198 nests km−2) than on mainland, where they were detected infrequently (usually <1 nest km−2). Predation was the main cause of nest failure, and King Eider nest success was greater on isolated islands (smaller islands, and larger islands farther from the mainland) that were presumably less accessible to mammalian predators. King Eiders did not derive protection from predators by nesting near gulls (Larus spp.) and Arctic Terns (Sterna paradisaea). Selección del Sitio de Nidificación, Asociaciones Interespecíficas y Éxito de Nidificación de Somateria spectabilis Resumen. Investigamos los factores que influencian el éxito de nidificación de Somateria spectabilis en Karrak Lake, Nunavut, Canada, durante 1995–2001. Los individuos que nidifican en las islas presentaron un mayor éxito de nidificación (entre 30–89%) que el reportado para las poblaciones que nidifican en el continente, y anidaron a una mayor densidad que en el continente, donde se detectaron infrecuentemente (usualmente <1 nido km−2). La depredación fue la principal causa de fracaso, y el éxito de nidificación de S. spectabilis fue mayor en islas grandes y pequeñas más alejadas del continente, las que presumiblemente se encontraban menos accesibles a mamíferos depredadores. Somateria spectabilis no obtuvo protección contra depredadores al nidificar cerca de gaviotas (Larus spp.) y gaviotines Sterna paradisaea.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".