MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178345188 · doi:10.3356/jrr-14-00002.1

Origin, Growth, and Composition of the Recovering Peregrine Falcon Population in Ontario

2015· article· en· W2178345188 on OpenAlexaffabout
Marcel A. Gahbauer, David M. Bird, Ted Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Raptor Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryMcGill UniversitySte. Anne's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubspeciesBiological dispersalPopulationFalconPeregrinusCaptive breedingGeographyBiologyZoologyEcologyDemographyHabitatEndangered species

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After an absence of more than two decades, Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus) resumed nesting in Ontario in 1986. Between 1991 and 2006, at least 193 young fledged in southern Ontario and 548 young fledged in northern Ontario. The number of breeding pairs, nesting attempts, successful nests, and young fledged all steadily increased in both regions throughout this period. In southern Ontario, 25% of the breeding adults produced nearly 50% of all fledglings, and 87% of the fledglings came from just eight breeding sites. Direction of natal dispersal was variable, but females consistently moved farther than males, and there was frequent movement both to and from adjacent American states. The population recovery resulted from the release of 592 captive-bred F. p. anatum juveniles in Ontario between 1977 and 2005, plus immigration from other provinces and release efforts in adjacent regions of the United States, where at least five subspecies contributed to the gene pool of captive-bred birds. Encounter rates for both captive-bred and wild-fledged young in Ontario have been low, but wild-raised young have been recruited to the breeding population almost twice as frequently as captive-bred birds. This difference partially explains the genetic composition of the southern Ontario population, where at most 21% of nesting attempts between 1995 and 2006 involved a pair of Canadian-released anatum adults, and 59% of cases involved at least one adult of American origin. Therefore, although the Ontario population has exceeded documented historical levels, it may not be greater than actual historical numbers, and it cannot be strictly considered an anatum population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.094
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.248 · 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.

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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Raptor ResearchSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207