Temporal patterns of foraging activities of northern gannets,<i>Morus bassanus</i>, in the northwest Atlantic Ocean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated time allocation and diel rhythms in foraging northern gannets (Morus bassanus). Chick-rearing adults on Funk Island, Newfoundland, Canada, were equipped with different types of data loggers. We found no effects of the devices on the birds' behaviour or breeding success. A total of 25 foraging trips were recorded from 16 birds. Foraging- trip durations (median 13.5 h, range 3.039.2 h) showed a bimodal distribution, coinciding with a partitioning of foraging trips into 1- and 2-day trips. Some individuals were consistent in performing either 1- or 2-day trips. During foraging trips, gannets were flying, on average, 44% of the time. Foraging activities exhibited a clear diel rhythm. Flight and diving activity was concentrated during early morning and late afternoon, with reduced activity during midday. Gannets were inactive at night. Flight time between the terminal dive of a foraging trip and arrival at the colony was significantly longer during 2-day trips (94 ± 22 min; mean ± SD) than during 1-day trips (51 ± 22 min). Water masses visited differed between 1- and 2-day trips. We could find no evidence for a clear dual foraging strategy, although birds were exploiting more distant waters during 2-day trips, as has been found for many procellariform species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".