MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

DISAPPEARANCE OF BREEDING SEMIPALMATED SANDPIPERS FROM CHURCHILL, MANITOBA: MORE THAN A LOCAL PHENOMENON

2007· article· en· W2176418306 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Joseph R. Jehl

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological Applications · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChurchill Northern Studies Centre
KeywordsCalidrisSandpiperBayPopulationGeographyHabitatEcologyRange (aeronautics)Seasonal breederPopulation declinePloverBiologyFisheryDemographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract As late as the 1940s the Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusilla) was the most abundant sandpiper breeding at Churchill, Manitoba. By the 1960s it had undergone a sharp decline, and by the mid-1990s the local population consisted of 11 pairs in a single colony. Nesting was last documented in 2001. Declines had also become evident at several other breeding sites along the Hudson Bay coast of Manitoba and Ontario, as well as in the number of migrants detected on the Atlantic coast of Canada and the northern United States. Information on the biology of the Churchill population in 1993–2004 largely agreed with that gathered at La Pérouse Bay, Manitoba, in the 1980s: reproductive success was good and new birds continued to join the colony; however, the number of breeding attempts by individuals was low and decreasing. As there is no evidence that the decline was related to local factors (e.g., altered habitats, climate change), it is probably attributable to mortality in the nonbreeding season, which leaves fewer birds available to return north. Whether causality can be fully resolved is problematic. Monitoring migrants can reveal population trends and studies on the breeding grounds can help frame hypotheses, but both approaches are time-consuming and provide only partial answers. In such cases, restoration of declining species may be best served by fostering habitat conservation throughout a species' range.

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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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