MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2175056245 · doi:10.1676/03-031

SURVIVAL AND MOVEMENT OF POSTFLEDGING JUVENILE HARLEQUIN DUCKS

2003· article· en· W2175056245 on OpenAlexaff
Heidi M. Regehr

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Wilson Bulletin · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenilePhilopatryBiological dispersalWaterfowlBiologyPopulationEcologyAnatidaeDemographyZoologyGeographyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Age specific survival and movement are important components of demography and population structure, and quantification of these rates is useful for management and conservation. However, information on the postfledging ecology of waterfowl species frequently is unavailable to managers. I studied postfledging survival and movements of juvenile Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia, using radio marking and capture-mark-recapture analysis of banded birds captured at coastal wintering areas. Survival of juvenile females was high, providing evidence that female winter survival may be similar among age groups. Radio-marked juvenile males were more likely to die than juvenile females, and juvenile males had lowest local survival rates of all sex-age classes. Proportions of banded juveniles found at their capture location during their second winter did not differ significantly between males and females, suggesting equal dispersal rates, and at least 25% (n = 9) of radio-marked females moved >30 km from their capture location. These results were unexpected, based on previous evidence for female philopatry and theories of male- biased dispersal in waterfowl, and suggest that males and females both likely contribute to gene flow and demographic connection among populations.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.211
Teacher spread0.202 · 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.

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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Wilson BulletinSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207