MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2127030423 · doi:10.1675/1524-4695-31.sp2.4

Harlequin Ducks in Greenland

2008· article· en· W2127030423 on OpenAlex
David Boertmann

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueWaterbirds · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreedGeographyPopulationHabitatFisheryEcologyBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Information on breeding and wintering Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) in Greenland is very limited, and no firm estimates of breeding and wintering numbers are available. However, it is assumed that only a few thousand pairs breed in Greenland. Numbers of molting males are estimated at 5,000 to 10,000 birds. They comprise both Greenland and eastern Canadian breeders; their proportions are unknown, but the latter may very well constitute a significant part. If true, Greenland has a significant responsibility for the well being of the eastern Canadian breeding population. Presently, there are no immediate threats to the Harlequin Duck population in Greenland. Hunting (illegal) has only negligible effects and habitat destruction is extremely limited. However, oil spills from transport of oil and increased offshore oil exploration constitute a potentially serious threat to molting and wintering birds from the breeding populations in Greenland and in eastern Canada.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.182 · 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