MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SEX, AGE, AND BODY SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS OF WESTERN SANDPIPERS DURING THE NONBREEDING SEASON WITH RESPECT TO LOCAL HABITAT

2006· article· en· W2173398907 on OpenAlexafffund
Guillermo Fernández, David B. Lank

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological Applications · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersVedecká Grantová Agentúra MŠVVaŠ SR a SAVSimon Fraser UniversityNorthwestern University
KeywordsMarshCalidrisHabitatEcologyMangrovePredationBrackish marshPopulationSex ratioGeographyBiologySandpiperSalt marshPopulation densityWetlandDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We documented the local density and sex, age-class, and body size distributions of Western Sandpipers (Calidris mauri) among habitats at Bahía Santa María, northwestern Mexico, during the nonbreeding season. Three habitats were recognized: brackish flats, mangroves, and cattail marshes, which we ranked as richest to poorest in food resources and safest to most dangerous in predation danger. Western Sandpiper population structure differed among habitats. Bird densities were highest in brackish flats, the richest and safest habitat, and males and adults of both sexes were overrepresented. In cattail marshes, which appeared to be the poorest and most dangerous habitat, bird densities were lower, and the sex ratio and age ratios within each sex were more even. In mangroves, bird densities were similar to those in cattail marshes, but sex and age ratios were similar to those in brackish flats. Exposed culmen, an index of structural size, was not related to habitat use in either sex. Body mass of immature males was more variable than that of adults among habitats and immature males gained mass throughout the winter. Birds in brackish flats and mangroves were initially heavier, but tended to lose mass, whereas birds in cattail marshes were initially lighter, but tended to gain mass. Mass distributions thus converged in late winter. While the social and ecological causes and significance of differential sex and age-class distributions among habitats remain largely unquantified, evidence from this and previous studies suggests that nonbreeding population structure is a common phenomenon with important implications for migratory shorebirds.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations34
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrnithological ApplicationsSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207