Duration and Phenology of Remigial Molt of Barrow's Goldeneye
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We quantified the duration and phenology of remigial molt of Barrow's Goldeneyes (Bucephala islandica) in northwestern Alberta, Canada. We estimated that the remiges' average (± SE) growth rate was 3.94 ± 0.13 mm day-1, slightly slower than that of most waterfowl. Barrow's Goldeneyes regained flight with the ninth primary 77% grown, a percentage similar to or greater than that of most waterfowl. By several metrics, remigial molt of Barrow's Goldeneye was longer than that of most waterfowl. We estimated that it took 6.5 ± 1.2 days for a new ninth primary to become visible once the old primary was dropped (pre-emergence interval). The periods in which males and females were flightless were 30 ± 0.4 and 28 ± 0.5 days, respectively, and 36.5 ± 0.5 and 34.5 ± 0.8 days, respectively, including the pre-emergence interval. Complete maturation of primaries after emergence took 39 ± 0.5 and 36 ± 0.7 days for males and females, respectively, and 45.5 ± 0.6 and 42.5 ± 0.9 days, respectively, including the pre-emergence interval. These results suggest a lack of strong selective pressure to reduce the duration of remigial molt in this species. Initiated over a range of nearly 2 months, remigial molt was asynchronous both between and within age and sex cohorts, suggesting a lack of strong temporal optima for remigial molt of Barrow's Goldeneyes at our study sites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".