MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Demography of Swainson's Hawks Breeding in Western Canada

2006· article· en· W2176829844 on OpenAlexaffabout
Josef K. Schmutz, Philip D. McLoughlin, C. Stuart Houston

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsButeoPopulationPredationReproductionDemographyGeographyVital ratesMortality ratePopulation sizeFisheryBiologyEcologyPopulation growthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our objective was to estimate demographic parameters and population trends for Swainson's hawks (Buteo swainsoni) breeding in southeast Alberta and southwest Saskatchewan, Canada, from 1972 to 2003. We assembled mark–resighting–recovery histories of 6,606 banded Swainson's hawks for a joint analysis of survival and resighting probability, including band-reporting rate and fidelity of animals, following Burnham's joint resighting–recovery model provided in program MARK. Our best-fitting survival model specified age-related variation in survival, resighting probability, and fidelity, and it specified age-by-temporal variation in nestling survival and adult resighting probability. From estimated survival rates and previously published data on reproduction, for the period 1973–1996 we estimated the population's finite rate of increase, λ, to be 0.996 (95% CI: 0.945–1.057). We believe that population limitation of Swainson's hawks is primarily related to the influence of prey availability on brood size and nestling survival. Despite indications of recent population declines, we conclude that Swainson's hawks breeding in western Canada are not currently in need of special management action.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.058

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations14
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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