MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2152179108 · doi:10.1139/z04-019

Foraging patterns of male and female Double-crested Cormorants nesting in the Columbia River estuary

2004· article· en· W2152179108 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cynthia D. Anderson, Daniel D. Roby, Ken Collis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBonneville Power Administration
KeywordsForagingEstuaryForageBiologyPredationEcologyFisherySpatial distributionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nesting colony of Double-crested Cormorants, Phalacrocorax auritus (Lesson, 1831), on East Sand Island in the Columbia River estuary is currently the largest for this species on the Pacific Coast of North America. We used radiotelemetry to investigate the spatial and temporal foraging patterns of nesting cormorants to better understand how this colony of piscivores meets its resource needs. We determined that nesting adults tended to forage >5 km from the colony and foraging distribution was distinctly different between the sexes. On average, males commuted nearly twice the distance to forage compared with females. Females typically foraged in the estuarine mixing zone, reportedly the region of the estuary with the greatest densities of schooling fishes, while males tended to commute more than 15 km to forage in the freshwater zone. Foraging intensity of both sexes varied by time of day, tide stage, and tide series; foraging generally intensified during ebb tides. These gender differences in foraging patterns, combined with the ability to forage at considerable distance from the colony on a wide variety of prey, may allow this large and growing colony to remain productive while potentially competing for food with many thousands of other piscivorous waterbirds that use East Sand 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 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)0.000
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 score0.595
Threshold uncertainty score0.963

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations71
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207