MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146739567 · doi:10.1675/063.035.0108

The Morphometrics of Migrant Semipalmated Sandpipers in the Bay of Fundy: Evidence for Declines in the Eastern Breeding Population

2012· article· en· W2146739567 on OpenAlexafffund
Peter W. Hicklin, John W. Chardine

Bibliographic record

VenueWaterbirds · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersAgence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du TravailNature Conservancy of CanadaNature Conservancy
KeywordsSandpiperCalidrisBayOverwinteringMorphometricsRange (aeronautics)FisheryPopulationBiologyEcologyGeographyZoologyDemographyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over 16 field seasons, between 1981 and 2006, nearly 20,000 migrant Semipalmated Sandpipers were captured, weighed, and their bills and wings measured during the fall stopover in the Bay of Fundy. Annual mean bill and wing lengths declined over the course of the study. As eastern Semipalmated Sandpipers have longer bills and wings than those from the west, we interpret the decline to be the result of a reduced proportion of eastern birds in our samples. Semipalmated Sandpiper populations are in decline in North America, and our data suggest that the decline may be more severe in the eastern part of their breeding range. Body mass and size-adjusted mass at the migratory stopover study site have not declined during the study, suggesting that feeding conditions have not deteriorated there. Possibly, differing conditions experienced on the breeding grounds or overwintering areas may explain why eastern populations of Semipalmated Sandpipers may be declining more severely than those from the west.

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 score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterbirdsSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207