MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180100644 · doi:10.1648/0273-8570-73.2.206

Retention and effects of nasal markers and subcutaneously implanted radio transmitters on breeding female Lesser Scaup

2002· article· en· W2180100644 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rodney W. Brook, Robert G. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Field Ornithology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlAythyaBiologyNasal cavityAnimal scienceAnatomyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forty-seven wild female Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) were marked with nasal markers and radio transmitters (implanted subcutaneously on the back) just prior to breeding near Yellowknife, Northwest Territories, in 1999 and 2000. Retention rates of both marker types were evaluated, and their effects on specific behavior categories were assessed by comparison of marked birds with unmarked control birds. Significant effects of nasal markers on behavior were detected; females often removed vegetation from nasal markers after diving, and consequently marked females tended to shake their head more frequently than unmarked birds. No nasal markers were lost during the study. Five females lost radios, producing an average retention time of 39 d. Daily retention rate was 0.997, being 0.85 when extrapolated to 60 d. The survival rate of 42 females radio-tracked consistently was constant for six 7-d intervals, suggesting no immediate adverse effect on survival. Because the technique is invasive, use of subcutaneous transmitters may not be appropriate for all applications, but it could be a preferred alternative to other transmitter-attachment methods for short-term tracking of waterfowl.

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)0.000
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations20
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Field OrnithologySame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207