MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2176489787 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2015-0046

A large molluscivore bird (Common Eider, <i>Somateria</i><i> mollissima</i>) is able to discriminate quality of blue mussels (<i>Mytilus</i><i> edulis</i>) based on size and provenance

2015· article· en· W2176489787 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Élisabeth Varennes, Sveinn Are Hanssen, John C. Bonardelli, Magella Guillemette

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMytilusBiologyPredationForagingEiderMusselIntertidal zoneBlue musselPopulationEcologyForageFisheryZoology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Molluscivore birds that forage on abundant but low-quality food have to ingest large quantities of food to achieve energy balance. Such a strategy is often associated with important digestive constraints limiting predator’s ingestion. Thus, these predators may use prey selection to ingest better-quality individuals among a generally low-quality prey population. Using captive Common Eiders (Somateria mollissima (L., 1758)) diving in a constant environment, we were able to examine their preferences for blue mussels (Mytilus edulis L., 1758) of varying qualities (different sizes or provenances). In addition, we studied the consequences prey selection had on Eiders’ energy intake rates and ingestion of flesh and shell material. Eiders selected 10–20 mm mussels and were able to discriminate and to select cultivated mussels from intertidal mussels. Prey selection allowed, in certain conditions of prey-size abundance, higher flesh and energy intake rates without increasing the ingestion of shell material. This study confirmed the energetic advantage that Eiders have when foraging in aquaculture sites, which explain the large depredation of preferred mussel sizes.

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)0.000
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→