SUMMER FOOD HABITS OF HARLEQUIN DUCKS IN EASTERN NORTH AMERICA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We collected feces of breeding Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) from interior rivers of Northern Québec, Labrador and Newfoundland to document their summer food habits. We obtained 42 samples from 50 ducks. All samples contained recognizable food items, and the mean number of taxa identified per sample was 3.6 (SD = 1.6, range = 1–7). Overall, a total of 10,222 organisms from 25 taxa were identified. Nearly all (99.7%) food items were insects; the rest were mollusks and mites. Among insects, Simuliidae larvae were the most common food item, representing 87.2% of all prey counted. Other insects had low relative frequencies, the highest being Trichoptera with only 8.0%. However, in terms of frequency of occurrence, many insects were well represented: Trichoptera (83.3%), Ephemeroptera (64.3%), Diptera (61.9%), Plecoptera (33.3%), Coleoptera (11.9%), and Heteroptera (9.5%). Although Simuliidae larvae may represent the most important food taken in terms of absolute numbers, the relative importance of Trichoptera may be much higher in terms dry weight. These results are consistent with observations that Harlequin Ducks usually feed on the bed of fast stretches of rivers, and occasionally in slow-moving waters.
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 | 0.001 | 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".