MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Body mass variation in Marbled Murrelets in British Columbia, Canada

2002· article· en· W2163590476 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cindy L. Hull, Brett A. Vanderkist, Lynn W. Lougheed, Gary W. Kaiser, Fred Cooke

Bibliographic record

VenueIbis · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredationMarbled meatFisherySeasonal breederBiologyZoologyAnimal scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Body mass was measured in Marbled Murrelets Brachyramphus marmoratus from May to August, 1994–1998 at Desolation Sound, and during June and July 1997 at Mussel Inlet, British Columbia, Canada, to assess seasonal, sexual, site and intra‐annual variation. Birds were captured by mist‐net, and by night‐lighting, and were sexed using molecular techniques. The breeding status of females (gravid or not) in 1997 was determined from plasma levels of egg‐yolk precursors. Adult males weighed 203.7 ± 14.8 g, n = 495 (juveniles 166.6 ± 28.8 g, n = 31) and females weighed 201.2 ± 20.5 g, n = 344 (juveniles 148.3 ± 23.5 g, n = 20). Murrelets caught in mist‐nets were significantly lighter than those caught by night‐lighting. Female mass was constant across years of the study, but males caught by night‐lighting were heavier in 1998 than in 1997. Females declined in mass during the egg‐laying period, but when gravid females were removed from the analysis, or when the post‐laying data were analysed, no declines were found. Marbled Murrelets appear to maintain mass at a constant level all season, and are probably more income than capital breeders. Variation in body mass in this species may be constrained by the need to fly with speed and agility to avoid aerial predators.

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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.157
Teacher spread0.153 · 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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIbisSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207