LIFE-HISTORY IMPLICATIONS OF LARGE-SCALE SPATIAL VARIATION IN ADULT SURVIVAL OF BLACK BRANT (BRANTA BERNICLA NIGRICANS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used capture–recapture methods to estimate adult survival rates for adult female Black Brant (Branta bernicla nigricans; hereafter “brant”) from three colonies in Alaska, two on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, and one on Alaska's Arctic coast. Costs of migration and reproductive effort varied among those colonies, enabling us to examine variation in survival in relation to variation in these other variables. We used the Barker model in program MARK to estimate true annual survival for brant from the three colonies. Models allowing for spatial variation in survival were among the most parsimonious models but were indistinguishable from a model with no spatial variation. Point estimates of annual survival were slightly higher for brant from the Arctic (0.90 ± 0.036) than for brant from either Tutakoke River (0.85 ± 0.004) or Kokechik Bay (0.86 ± 0.011). Thus, our survival estimates do not support a hypothesis that the cost of longer migrations or harvest experienced by brant from the Arctic reduced their annual survival relative to brant from the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. Spatial variation in survival provides weak support for life-history theory because brant from the region with lower reproductive investment had slightly higher survival.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".