MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Contrasting effects of the extent of sea‐ice on the breeding performance of an Antarctic top predator, the Snow Petrel <i>Pagodroma nivea</i>

2001· article· en· W2134857887 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Christophe Barbraud, Henri Weimerskirch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Avian Biology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPolar Knowledge Canada
KeywordsSea iceBiologyOceanographyAntarctic krillKrillArctic ice packTrophic levelPredationApex predatorEcologyFisheryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies have shown that the Antarctic Circumpolar Wave and the related sea‐ice cover around the Antarctic continent may have a profound effect on the lower trophic levels of the marine environment. In particular, extensive sea‐ice cover enhances the survival of krill. However, the effects of sea‐ice cover on top predators remain poorly understood. Using time series from 1973 to 1999, we examine the influence of regional sea‐ice extent on a number of indices of breeding performance of an avian predator, the Snow Petrel, in Antarctica. The percentage of breeding pairs was highly variable and there were fewer birds breeding when sea‐ice cover was extensive during July. By contrast, overall breeding success and fledgling body condition were improved during years with extensive sea‐ice cover during the preceding November and July–September. These results indicate that the same sea‐ice conditions may have different effects on the breeding performance of a species. The overall increase in winter sea‐ice extent during the last decade appears to have resulted in an overall improvement of the quality of fledglings produced, and thus probably of future recruitment.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations57
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Avian BiologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207