Effects of Backpack Radio-Transmitters on Female Barrow’s Goldeneyes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared time-budgets and return rates of breeding female Barrow’s Goldeneyes (Bucephala islandica) fitted, or not, with transmitters attached with backpack harnesses in 2001-2004 in southern Québec. We compared the mean proportion of time devoted to feeding, locomotion, alert, resting, preening, and maintenance (i.e., resting plus preening) by females observed ≥200 min. Females with backpacks (N = 5) spent significantly less time feeding (x ± SE: 25 ± 5% versus 43 ± 3%) and more time in maintenance activities (51 ± 6% versus 31 ± 4%) than females without transmitters (N = 6). Mean time devoted to other behavior did not differ significantly. Upon release, females appeared disturbed with the backpack, actively bathing, preening and/or flapping wings. Of the females with transmitters observed ≥200 min, three spent 4%, 8%, and 57% of their preening time at their transmitter, antennae or harness. None of the 16 females harnessed in 2001-2003 were recaptured in nest boxes or seen again on the study area in 2002-2004. For comparison, 66% of adult female Barrow’s Goldeneyes captured in nest boxes and marked with leg bands in 2000-2002 were recaptured or seen again in subsequent years. We do not recommend the use of harnesses on diving ducks and sea ducks as it may affect their behavior and survival, at least for birds wintering in areas where conditions are severe.
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 | 0.000 | 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".