MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SEASONAL VARIATION IN WATERFOWL NESTING SUCCESS AND ITS RELATION TO COVER MANAGEMENT IN THE CANADIAN PRAIRIES

2005· article· en· W2174419508 on OpenAlexaffabout
Robert B. Emery, David W. Howerter, Llwellyn M. Armstrong, Michael G. Anderson, James H. Devries, Brian L. Joynt

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsDucks Unlimited Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlNesting (process)Nesting seasonGeographyVegetation (pathology)EcologyNest (protein structural motif)HabitatBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early hatched waterfowl are more likely to enter the breeding population. Managers' primary tool to increase nesting success in the Prairie Pothole Region (PPR) of North America is managing upland vegetation for duck nesting cover. To determine whether managed covertypes affect early-season nesting success, we modeled seasonal variation in nesting success using >17,000 duck nests found in managed and unmanaged covertypes in prairie Canada from 1993 to 2000. Nesting success was higher in most managed covertypes than in unmanaged covertypes early in the nesting season. Planted cover appeared to be the best managed covertype for increasing early-season nesting success as it had high early-season nesting success, and was selected by nesting ducks in greater proportion than its availability; however, nesting success in planted cover declined later in the nesting season while nesting success in most unmanaged covertypes increased. Nevertheless, even with reduced nesting success late in the season, planted cover was more productive than surrounding unmanaged covertypes. Future waterfowl management efforts should focus on providing safe nesting cover early in the nesting season.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations93
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207