MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180592543 · doi:10.1579/0044-7447-33.8.487

Declining Extent of Open-water Refugia for Top Predators in Baffin Bay and Adjacent Waters

2004· article· en· W2180592543 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mads Peter Heide‐Jørgensen, Kristin L. Laidre

Bibliographic record

VenueAMBIO · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayOceanographySeabirdArcticPredationOverwinteringOpen waterPelagic zoneMarine mammalAbundance (ecology)Environmental scienceForagingEcologyMarine ecosystemEcosystemGeographyFisheryGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global climate change is expected to severely impact Arctic ecosystems, yet predictions of impacts are complicated by region-specific patterns and nonuniform trends. Twentyfour open-water overwintering areas (or "microhabitats") were identified to be of particular importance for eight seabird and marine mammal species in the eastern Canadian High Arctic and Baffin Bay. Localized trends in the available fraction of open-water were examined in March during 1979--2001, derived from approximate sea ice concentrations from satellite-based microwave telemetry. Declines in the fraction of open-water were identified at microhabitats in Baffin Bay, Davis Strait, coastal West Greenland, and Lancaster Sound. Increases in open-water were observed in Hudson Bay, Hudson Strait, and Foxe Basin. The biological importance of each microhabitat was examined based on species distribution and abundance. Potential consequences of reduced open-water for top marine predators include impacts on foraging efficiency and oxygen and prey availability.

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 score0.574
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations54
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAMBIOSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207