MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145049983 · doi:10.2193/2006-204

Effects of Habitat on Mallard Duckling Survival in the Great Lakes Region

2007· article· en· W2145049983 on OpenAlexaff
John Simpson, Tina Yerkes, Thomas D. Nudds, Barry D. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlAnasHabitatWetlandAnatidaeEcologyVegetation (pathology)WildlifeGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Habitat provides food and shelter resources for prefledgling waterfowl and thus plays a critical role in their growth, development, and survival. However, few studies have examined whether and how particular elements of habitat affect duckling survival. We investigated relationships of duckling survival rates with distance of overland travel, wetland vegetation composition, water permanency, and surrounding upland vegetation for 116 mallard ( Anas platyrhynchos ) broods in the Great Lakes region from 2001 to 2003. We found that the probability, on hatch day, that a mallard duckling will survive to 55 days was positively related to the proportion of wetland area that was vegetated and negatively related to the proportion of forest cover within 500 m of duckling locations. We found little support for relationships between duckling survival rates and the proportions of grasslands or seasonal wetlands or to distances traveled overland by broods. Our results suggest that conservation groups and wildlife managers in the Great Lakes region can improve mallard duckling survival rates by managing for, creating, and protecting vegetated wetlands and focusing efforts within lightly‐forested areas.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations20
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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