MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Clutch, egg and body size variation among common eiders breeding in Hudson Bay, Canada

2001· article· en· W2139157954 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gregory J. Robertson, Austin Reed, H. Grant Gilchrist

Bibliographic record

VenuePolar Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsGovernment of Northwest Territories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayAvian clutch sizeFisheryClutchBiologyVariation (astronomy)Environmental scienceEcologyZoologyReproductionOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Hudson Bay common eider (Somateria molissima sedentaria) is a unique subspecies of eider that remains within the confines of Hudson Bay throughout the year. We compared clutch, egg and body size variation among populations of common eiders breeding in eastern and western Hudson Bay. Clutch size did not differ substantially among these populations. All eiders in Hudson Bay laid larger clutches than other subspecies in eastern North America. As Hudson Bay common eiders do not undergo extensive migrations, they may have more energy reserves available to them for egg production. Eiders nesting in eastern Hudson Bay laid larger eggs than eiders nesting in western Hudson Bay. Further, eiders in eastern Hudson Bay tended to be structurally larger, but had smaller bill processes. These differences may have a genetic basis. Smaller egg size and body size may arise in western Hudson Bay from mixing with the smaller borealis subspecies nesting to the north. Further work to resolve genetic affinities, determine levels of male and female dispersal, and examine variation in reproductive ecology are needed to resolve the sources of these differences.

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 score0.136
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolar ResearchSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207