MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153167588 · doi:10.14430/arctic604

Molt Migration in Relation to Breeding Success in Greater Snow Geese

2003· article· en· W2153167588 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Eric T. Reed, Joël Bêty, Julien Mainguy, Gilles Gauthier, Jean‐François Giroux

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)SnowMoultingReproductive successBroodBiologyAnatidaeEcologyWaterfowlHabitatOffspringZoologyMudaGeographyLarvaDemographyPopulationPregnancy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We describe summer migratory movements by female greater snow geese (Chen caerulescens atlantica) breeding on Bylot Island, Nunavut. We followed 121 radio-collared females between 1997 and 2001 to determine the frequency and timing of their departure from the colony in relation to breeding status, nesting success, and molting chronology. We found that 90% (n = 51) of non-breeders (no nest found) and 97% (n = 29) of failed nesters (nest destroyed or abandoned before hatch) departed the island before molting. The few non-breeders that remained on Bylot Island all summer molted earlier than adults with young, and they appeared to initiate the fall migration before breeding geese. In contrast, only 2% of successful nesters (n = 41) left Bylot Island to molt, and those that did presumably had lost their offspring in the early stages of brood rearing. Thus, the occurrence of a molt migration in greater snow geese appears to be strongly dependent on reproductive status and nesting success. The area used by molt migrants and their habitat requirements during molt remain unknown. We suggest that the paucity of predator-safe areas (such as large water bodies) on Bylot Island may be an important factor that drives the geese to molt elsewhere.

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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations63
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207