MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112693940 · doi:10.1676/05-120.1

COLONIALITY, MATE RETENTION, AND NEST-SITE CHARACTERISTICS IN THE SEMIPALMATED SANDPIPER

2006· article· en· W2112693940 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph R. Jehl

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Journal of Ornithology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalidrisSandpiperNest (protein structural motif)Nesting (process)EcologyRange (aeronautics)PopulationHabitatGeographyBiologyFisheryDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coloniality is unusual among Scolopacidae. At Churchill, Manitoba, however, the small, remnant population of Semipalmated Sandpipers (Calidris pusilla) is highly clumped, with nesting density approximating 3–4 pairs/ha, and should be considered colonial. The species exhibits high fidelity to territory, mates, and nest sites—behaviors that promote rapid pair formation and allow experienced birds to increase their reproductive success by nesting earlier than pairs forming for the first time. The value of experience and early nesting was evidenced by the fact that six of seven returning young were produced by experienced pairs and had hatched on the first day of their respective nesting seasons. Nests were placed in dry locations very near open water. Those adjacent to small shrubs had slightly greater success, and young produced from these nests had much higher rates of return than those from nests placed amid sedges. In other parts of their breeding range, Semipalmated Sandpipers are also clumped and seem likely to be colonial. If so, estimates of breeding populations derived from indirect methods, such as habitat assessment from aerial photographs, will have limited applicability and will need to be complemented by ground-truthing.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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