Comparative nesting success of sympatric Lesser Scaup and Ring-necked Ducks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the fact that Lesser Scaup and Ring-necked Ducks are closely related and nest in similar habitats, the two species have inverse population trends. To evaluate the hypothesis that the difference in trends could be related to differences in reproduction, we compared nesting success of sympatric Lesser Scaup and Ring-necked Ducks in parkland habitat near Erickson, Manitoba. Data supported a model that allowed nest survival to differ by species more strongly than a model that did not. Daily survival rate of Lesser Scaup nests (0.941) was lower than that of Ring-necked Ducks (0.969). All Ring-necked Ducks nested over water, but only 57% of Lesser Scaup nested over water. Further, we found some evidence that nest survival was better over water than in upland locations. If our observed pattern of differential nesting success between species holds across broader areas, it may explain why Ring-necked Ducks are increasing across North America while Lesser Scaup populations are declining.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".