MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131974059 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.5

Stopover habitats of spring migrating surf scoters in southeast Alaska

2011· article· en· W2131974059 on OpenAlexaff
Erika K. Lok, Daniel Esler, John Y. Takekawa, Susan W. de la Cruz, W. Sean Boyd, David R. Nysewander, Joseph R. Evenson, David H. Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsHabitatWaterfowlGeographyFisheryEcologySpring (device)PopulationWildlifeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Habitat conditions and nutrient reserve levels during spring migration have been suggested as important factors affecting population declines in waterfowl, emphasizing the need to identify key sites used during spring and understand habitat features and resource availability at stopover sites. We used satellite telemetry to identify stopover sites used by surf scoters migrating through southeast Alaska during spring. We then contrasted habitat features of these sites to those of random sites to determine habitat attributes corresponding to use by migrating scoters. We identified 14 stopover sites based on use by satellite tagged surf scoters from several wintering sites. We identified Lynn Canal as a particularly important stopover site for surf scoters originating throughout the Pacific winter range; approximately half of tagged coastally migrating surf scoters used this site, many for extended periods. Stopover sites were farther from the mainland coast and closer to herring spawn sites than random sites, whereas physical shoreline habitat attributes were generally poor predictors of site use. The geography and resource availability within southeast Alaska provides unique and potentially critical stopover habitat for spring migrating surf scoters. Our work identifies specific sites and habitat resources that deserve conservation and management consideration. Aggregations of birds are vulnerable to human activity impacts such as contaminant spills and resource management decisions. This information is of value to agencies and organizations responsible for emergency response planning, herring fisheries management, and bird and ecosystem conservation. © 2010 The Wildlife Society

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)0.000
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207