RESEARCH NOTES: EVIDENCE OF RECENT POPULATION INCREASES IN COMMON EIDERS BREEDING IN LABRADOR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Populations of several sea ducks are declining \nacross their North American ranges (Sea Duck \nJoint Venture Management Board 2001), including \npopulations of all 4 eider species (Somateria spp. \nand Polysticta steller; Kertell 1991, Stehn et al. 1993, \nGratto-Trevor et al. 1998). Declines in common \neider populations have been documented in \nGreenland, Hudson Bay, and Alaska (Robertson \nand Gilchrist 1998, Sudyam et al. 2000, Merkel \n2004). Reasons behind these population decreases \nvary, and many are unclear. Factors identified as \ncausing these declines include human disturbance, \noverharvesting, and climatic events (Robertson and \nGilchrist 1998, Suydam et al. 2000, Merkel 2004). \nHowever, not all common eider populations in the \nnorth are decreasing; Christensen and Falk (2000) \nrecently found evidence of population increase in \nan eider population in Northwest Greenland, while \nothers have documented increases in Hudson \nStrait (Hipfner et al. 2001, Falardeau et al. 2003).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".