MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2119039590 · doi:10.1898/10-21.1

Occurrences of Kittlitz's Murrelets South of the Breeding Range Along the West Coast of North America

2011· article· en· W2119039590 on OpenAlexaff
Harry R. Carter, S. Kim Nelson, Spencer G. Sealy, Gus B. van Vliet

Bibliographic record

VenueNorthwestern Naturalist · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyRange (aeronautics)VagrancyFisherySeasonal breederWest coastArchaeologyEcologyOceanographyGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Even though Kittlitz's Murrelets (Brachyramphus brevirostris) remain almost entirely within the species' breeding range throughout the year, 20 records were obtained south of the breeding range along the west coast of North America between 1969 and 2010. Eight records between southern British Columbia and southern California (1969–2010), within the California Current region (33°–49° N), were considered to be vagrants, occurring far from the nearest breeding areas (1060 to 2920 km). Twelve records in southern Southeast Alaska and northern British Columbia (1994–2001) were relatively close to southernmost breeding areas (<730 km), still within the southern Alaska Current region (51°–56° N), and were considered to reflect occasional use of the southern part of the non-breeding range. With no records south of breeding areas prior to 1969, vagrancy and movements just south of the breeding range may have increased in recent decades because more qualified observers have covered the coastal areas, as well as due to changes in weather, reproduction, and movements. Increased search effort and better documentation of records will facilitate future confirmation and identification of changes in the type or frequency of these occurrences.

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 score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNorthwestern NaturalistSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207