MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164464126 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0608477104

Abrupt recent shift in δ <sup>13</sup> C and δ <sup>15</sup> N values in Adélie penguin eggshell in Antarctica

2007· article· en· W2164464126 on OpenAlexaff
Steven D. Emslie, William P. Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersOffice of Polar ProgramsNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPygoscelisBaleenKrillFeatherEggshellSeabirdForagingBiologyIsotope analysisBlubberTrophic levelZoologyEcologyPredationOceanographyGeologyWhale

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stable isotope values of carbon (delta13C) and nitrogen (delta15N) in blood, feathers, eggshell, and bone have been used in seabird studies since the 1980s, providing a valuable source of information on diet, foraging patterns, and migratory behavior in these birds. These techniques can also be applied to fossil material when preservation of bone and other tissues is sufficient. Excavations of abandoned Adélie penguin (Pygoscelis adeliae) colonies in Antarctica often provide well preserved remains of bone, feathers, and eggshell dating from hundreds to thousands of years B.P. Herein we present an approximately 38,000-year time series of delta13C and delta15N values of Adélie penguin eggshell from abandoned colonies located in three major regions of Antarctica. Results indicate an abrupt shift to lower-trophic prey in penguin diets within the past approximately 200 years. We posit that penguins only recently began to rely on krill as a major portion of their diet, in conjunction with the removal of baleen whales and krill-eating seals during the historic whaling era. Our results support the "krill surplus" hypothesis that predicts excess krill availability in the Southern Ocean after this period of exploitation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.536

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations148
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207