Foraging movements of Leach's storm‐petrels <i>Oceanodroma leucorhoa</i> during incubation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of foraging movements during the breeding season is key to understanding energetic stresses faced by seabirds. Using archival light loggers (geolocators), a Bayesian state–space model, and stable isotope analysis, we compared foraging movements of Leach's storm‐petrels Oceanodroma leucorhoa during their incubation periods in 2012 and 2013. Data were collected from two colonies, Bon Portage Island and Country Island, which are 380 km apart along the coast of Nova Scotia, Canada. Based on allometry for procellariiform mass, predicted foraging ranges for Leach's storm‐petrels are 200 km; however, observed maximum distances from the colony were 3 to 5 times that. Storm‐petrels from Country Island travelled 1015 ± 238 km southeast to the Laurentian fan and south of the Grand Banks whereas storm‐petrels from Bon Portage Island travelled 613 ± 167 km southeast, beyond the continental slope, east of Georges Bank. The average distance travelled in a return trip was 2287 ± 603 km and 1303 ± 351 km for Country Island and Bon Portage Island, respectively. There were no differences between years in cumulative distances travelled within islands, but foraging trips did not last as long in 2013 (4.7 ± 1.5 d) as they did in 2012 (6.2 ± 2.1 d). Stable isotope analyses indicated that, during the incubation period, prey items from Country Island were from higher trophic levels and possibly had higher energy content than those from Bon Portage Island, perhaps explaining the more distant and longer foraging trips for Country Island birds.
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 | 0.001 | 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".