MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

WESTERN SANDPIPERS (CALIDRIS MAURI) DURING THE NONBREEDING SEASON: SPATIAL SEGREGATION ON A HEMISPHERIC SCALE

2002· article· en· W2178077086 on OpenAlexaff
Silke Nebel, David B. Lank, Patrick D. O’Hara, Guillermo Fernández, Ben Haase, Francisco Sánchez Delgado, Felipe A. Estela, Lesley J. Evans Ogden, Brian Harrington, Barbara E. Kus, James E. Lyons, Francine Mercier, Brent Ortego, John Y. Takekawa, Nils Warnock, Sarah E. Warnock

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Auk · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaSimon Fraser University
FundersNorthwestern University
KeywordsCalidrisFeatherSandpiperRange (aeronautics)BiologyCircumpolar starEcologySpatial distributionPredationZoologyGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nonbreeding distribution of Western Sandpipers (Calidris mauri) was documented using 19 data sets from 13 sites along the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the Americas. Western Sandpipers showed latitudinal segregation with regard to sex and age. Females wintered farther south than males. A “U” shaped pattern was found with respect to age, with juveniles occurring at higher proportions at both the northern and southern ends of the range. Distribution of sexes might be affected by differences in bill length and a latitudinal trend in depth distribution of prey. For age class distribution, two different life-history tactics of juveniles might exist that are related to the higher cost of feather wear for juveniles compared to adults. Most juveniles complete three long-distance migrations on one set of flight feathers whereas adults complete two. Juveniles may winter either far north, thereby reducing feather wear induced by ultraviolet light, migration, or both, or far south and spend the summer on the nonbreeding area.

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)0.001
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations88
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe AukSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207