WINTER DISTRIBUTION, ECOLOGY AND MOVEMENTS OF RAZORBILLS alca torD a AND OTHER AUKS IN THE OUTER BAY OF FUNDY, ATLANTIC CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Winter distributions of auks in eastern Canadian, especially Razorbills, are poorly understood (Brown 1985, Gaston & Jones 1998). This contrasts with Europe, where populations are highly variable, but the wintering habits of Razorbills are reasonably well known (Lloyd 1974, Cramp et al. 1977, Tasker et al. 1987). Most information for the Northwest Atlantic comes from records in the PIROP (Programme Integre de Recherches sur les Oiseaux Pelagiques) database of the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) (Brown et al. 1975, Lock et al. 1994, Huettmann & Lock 1997; available online at http://seamap. env.duke.edu/datasets/detail/280). PIROP data were collected mainly between 1966 and 1992. Those surveys and several recent studies (Elliott et al. 1990, Falk et al. 1992, Falk & Durinck 1993, Stenhouse & Montevecchi 1996) show Razorbills predominantly on the Hamilton Banks, in Labrador during late fall and early winter, and in the northern Gulf of Maine later. Brown (1986) reported small WINTER DISTRIBUTION, ECOLOGY AND MOVEMENTS OF RAZORBILLS alca torDa AND OTHER AUKS IN THE OUTER BAY OF FUNDY, ATLANTIC CANADA
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".