Artifact Ingestion in Sea Ducks Wintering at Northeastern Lake Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of lead shot ingestion in waterfowl has declined in the lower Great Lakes (LGL) following the 1999 Canada-wide ban on use of toxic shot for waterfowl hunting, but few data exist on ingestion frequencies of spent shot or fishing weights for sea ducks wintering at the LGL. Artifact ingestion was evaluated in 269 Buffleheads (Bucephala albeola), 224 Common Goldeneyes (B. clangula) and 256 Long-tailed Ducks (Clangula hyemalis) collected at Lake Ontario during winter 2002–03 and 2003–04. Long-tailed Ducks ingested total shot (lead and steel shot combined) more frequently (6.6%) than did Common Goldeneye (1.8%) and Bufflehead (0.4%). Lead shot was ingested by Long-tailed Ducks (5.1%) and Buffleheads (0.4%), but not by Common Goldeneyes. One Long-tailed Duck, 0.1 % of all specimens, ingested one lead fishing weight. Substrate type influenced artifact ingestion frequency and diving ducks that specialize on prey associated with hard substrates may continue to ingest artifacts more than ducks using soft substrate marshes. The results suggest lead toxicosis from spent shotgun pellets is presently non-existent to low in sea ducks wintering at northeastern Lake Ontario and that further restrictions on use of lead fishing tackle may have little implication for sea ducks in this region.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".