MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116036932 · doi:10.1017/s0032247400016818

Censuses of penguin, blue-eyed shag, and southern giant petrel populations in the Antarctic Peninsula region, 1994–2000

2000· article· en· W2116036932 on OpenAlexaff
Ron Naveen, Steven C. Forrest, Rosemary G. Dagit, Louise K. Blight, Wayne Z. Trivelpiece, Susan G. Trivelpiece

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Record · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPeninsulaGeographyPopulationCensusNest (protein structural motif)SeabirdEcologyShetlandBiologyPredationDemographyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents new census data and population estimates for penguins, blue-eyed shags, and southern giant petrels from 26 sites in the Antarctic Peninsula, collected by the Antarctic Site Inventory from 1994 to 2000. For nine sites, population data or estimates are published for the first time. The newly discovered gentoo penguin population of 215 nests at Herofna Island (63°24'S, 54°36'W) represents the easternmost location where this species has been found breeding in the Peninsula. All three pygoscelid penguins — gentoo, Adelie, and chinstrap — were found breeding at Gourdin Island (63° 12'S, 57° 18'W), the fourth known site where these species nest contiguously in the Peninsula. During the period, significant declines in nesting populations of blue-eyed shag were documented at three northwestern Peninsula locations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations42
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolar RecordSame topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207