MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128672087 · doi:10.1525/cond.2010.090059

Behavioral Responses to Higher Predation Risk in a Subarctic Population of the Semipalmated Plover

2010· article· en· W2128672087 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carmen Lishman, Erica Nol, Kenneth F. Abraham, Linh P. Nguyen

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological Applications · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryAurora CollegeTrent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPloverSubarctic climateBiological dispersalPredationCharadriusPopulationEcologySeasonal breederBiologyNest (protein structural motif)Range (aeronautics)DemographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied dispersal, mate retention, apparent survival, and renesting in a subarctic breeding population of the Semipalmated Plover (Charadrius semipalmatus) near the southern limits of its breeding range on Akimiski Island, Nunavut, Canada, from 2002 to 2007. The risk of predation at this site is higher than in more northern parts of this species' range. Dispersal of breeding birds was biased toward females, as found also at Churchill, Manitoba, a more northerly location. Mate retention was low both within (33.3%) and between (6.5%) seasons and much lower than previous estimates from Churchill. Return and encounter rates of adult males were higher than those of females, but apparent survival of adult males and females did not differ and was lower than that reported for Churchill. Within a season, renesting after a failed nest attempt was common (53%) with some pairs nesting three times in a season. Differences between the two study areas in rates of renesting may help to account for persistence of the southern population. Differences in weather at the two latitudes affect the duration of the breeding season and appear to have significant consequences for the strength of social monogamy but not for general patterns of dispersal.

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 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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrnithological ApplicationsSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207