Partitioning of diving effort in foraging trips of northern gannets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many species of seabirds are known to undertake foraging trips that vary in duration, lasting from a few hours up to several days. However, the important question of how individuals allocate their time during foraging trips of different durations has received relatively little attention until recently. Using activity loggers, we examined the foraging behavior of chick-rearing northern gannets, Morus bassanus (L., 1758), during trips of different durations, and tested predictions concerning how foraging activity varies across trips. There was no evidence of a relationship between dive frequency during the first 3 h of a trip and trip duration, suggesting that the decision to continue on a longer trip was not affected by an adult's initial rate of encounter with prey. Flight constituted approximately 50% of total trip time, and the dive rate of birds per daylight hour was apparently unaffected by trip duration. Birds dived at similar rates on the outward and return sections of their foraging trips, which suggests that they may have been "topping up" on food on their return. Overall our results suggest that, unlike other pelagic seabirds, northern gannets at the Bass Rock do not adjust their individual foraging strategies among trips of different durations.
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 | 0.001 | 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".