MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137425360 · doi:10.1017/s0954102011000071

Continued increase in numbers of spectacled petrels <i>Procellaria conspicillata</i>

2011· article· en· W2137425360 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter G. Ryan, Robert A. Ronconi

Bibliographic record

VenueAntarctic Science · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersKillam TrustsEuropean Commission
KeywordsFishingBurrowPopulationEndangered speciesBiologyCensusCritically endangeredFisheryPopulation sizeRange (aeronautics)EcologyZoologyGeographyDemographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Until recently, the spectacled petrel Procellaria conspicillata Gould was listed as Critically Endangered due to its small population size and ongoing incidental mortality on fishing gear. Surveys at its sole breeding locality, Inaccessible Island in the central South Atlantic Ocean, indicated that the population increased from 1999–2004, resulting in the species being down-listed to Vulnerable. We repeated the census of breeding spectacled petrels during the early incubation period in October–November 2009. Numbers of burrows increased by 55% from 2004–09, with increases in all count zones, and the greatest changes in peripheral populations. Burrow occupancy estimates remained high, averaging 81% during one-off checks. Our best estimate of the population in 2009 was 14 400 pairs, continuing the c. 7% per year increase inferred since the 1930s following the disappearance of introduced pigs. This confirms the rapid recovery of this species despite ongoing mortality on fishing gear. Our results suggest that at least some procellariiforms are able to sustain strong growth rates in the face of fishing mortality when colony based threats are removed.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations17
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAntarctic ScienceSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207