BREEDING BIOLOGY OF THE KELP GULL (LARUS DOMINICANUS) AT SANTA CATARINA COAST, BRAZIL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo.-Biologia reprodutiva de Larus dominicanus (Lichtenstein, 1823) no litoral de Santa Catarina, Brasil.-A gaivota Larus dominicanus é amplamente distribuída no Hemisfério Sul e suas populações tem se expandido em ambos Hemisférios.No Brasil são encontradas colônias reprodutivas a partir do litoral do Rio de Janeiro até Santa Catarina, sendo assim, esse trabalho tem como objetivo apresentar informações sobre a biologia reprodutiva de L. dominicanus nas ilhas costeiras de Santa Catarina.As amostragens foram realizadas no período de Julho 1996 a Dezembro 2006, sendo que o período de Março a Junho foi utilizado para o deslocamento dos adultos em direção às ilhas, demarcação de território e construção dos ninhos.Os primeiros ovos foram colocados em meados de Julho, e os primeiros filhotes foram avistados em Agosto.A média do comprimento, peso e volume dos ovos foram menores em Moleques do Sul enquanto que os maiores valores para a largura, peso e volume ocorreram em Tamboretes.Abstract.-The Kelp gull, Larus dominicanus, is widely distributed in the Southern Hemisphere, and its population has expanded in both Hemispheres.Breeding colonies in Brazil are found from the coast of Rio de Janeiro southwards to Santa Catarina.This paper provides information on the breeding biology of L. dominicanus on coastal islands of Santa Catarina.Population monitoring, nest and egg counts, and measurements were made from July 1996 to December 2006.From March to June of each year, we measured adult gull movement to islands, territorial establishment, and nest construction.Egg laying started in mid July, and nestlings were first seen in August.The average length, weight, and volume of the eggs were smaller than in Moleques do Sul Island while the width, weight, and volume of eggs were higher than on Tamboretes Island.
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".