MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

ASSESSING SEABIRD MORTALITY FROM CHRONIC OIL DISCHARGES AT SEA

2004· article· en· W2178351929 on OpenAlexaffabout
Francis K. Wiese, Gregory J. Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeabirdUria aalgeGeographyFisheryOil spillMarine mammalEcologyBiologyEnvironmental protectionPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chronic marine oil pollution is an ongoing global problem, yet no model currently exists to assess seabird mortality from continuous low-level inputs of oil. Taking into account persistence and detection rates of birds on beaches, and the wind-dependent proportion of birds lost at sea, we present a general mathematical Oiled Seabird Mortality Model (OSMM) to assess seabird mortality due to chronic oil pollution along a given coastline, using birds counted during systematic beached-bird surveys. We applied our OSMM to Newfoundland, Canada, where the incidence of chronic oil pollution is among the highest in world. We estimated that between 1998 and 2000, an average of 315,000 ± 65,000 murres (common [Uria aalge] and thick-billed [U. lomvia]) and dovekies (Alle alle) were killed annually in southeastern Newfoundland due to illegal discharges of oil from ships. Thick-billed murres that overwinter on the Grand Banks made up 67% of this kill. This species already is subject to extensive summer and winter hunting in Greenland, as well as winter hunting in Newfoundland, which harvests an additional 250,000–300,000 birds/year. Although populations remain stable, these levels of sustained mortality make thick-billed murre populations vulnerable to pulse perturbations and ocean regime shifts and hamper our ability to set harvest at sustainable levels.

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)0.001
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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.171

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations116
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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