MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CORRELATED GROWTH AND SURVIVAL OF JUVENILE SPECTACLED EIDERS: EVIDENCE OF HABITAT LIMITATION?

2006· article· en· W2172654475 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Paul L. Flint, Julie A. Morse, James B. Grand, Christine L. Moran

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological Applications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsJuvenilePredationBiologyEiderHabitatEcologyPopulationZoologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We studied the growth andsurvival of Spectacled Eider (Somateriafischeri) ducklings to30 days of age along the lower KashunukRiver on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta from 1995 to2000. We replicated this study at a second site,Kigigak Island, in 1999 and 2000. Age-adjustedestimates of duckling mass and survival at30 days posthatching were highly variable.Duckling survival was consistently higher onKigigak Island in 1999 and 2000, averaging67%, while survival on the Kashunuk Riveraveraged 45% during the same time period.Duckling survival was negatively related tohatching date. At the Kashunuk River site our datasupported models that indicated age-adjusted massvaried with habitat type and declined with hatchingdate. Ducklings from Kashunuk River were heavier in1999, while ducklings from Kigigak Island wereheavier in 2000. However, we found a positivecorrelation between 30-day duckling survival andage-adjusted mass, suggesting a localizedenvironmental effect on both parameters. Weconclude that predation may be the proximatemechanism of mortality, but habitat conditions arelikely the ultimate factors influencing ducklingsurvival. Geographic variation in rates of ducklingsurvival and apparent growth suggest that spatialheterogeneity in population vital rates isoccurring at multiple levels.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.258

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations15
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrnithological ApplicationsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207