MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2187962861

Site Safety and Food Affect Movements of Semipalmated Sandpipers (Calidris pusilla) Migrating Through the Upper Bay of Fundy Effets de la sécurité du site et de la disponibilité de nourriture sur les déplacements des Bécasseaux semipalmés durant leur halte migratoire dans la partie amont de la baie de Fundy

2008· article· fr· W2187962861 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ashley J. Sprague, Diana J. Hamilton, Antony W. Diamond

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalidrisBayForagingPredationNova scotiaFisheryHabitatEcologyGeographySandpiperBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The upper Bay of Fundy is a critical stopover site for Semipalmated Sandpipers ( Calidris pusilla) during their fall migration. However, little is known about factors that influence selection of feeding and roosting sites by these birds, or the extent to which birds move between different sites during their time in the region. Using radio-telemetry, we studied movement patterns, examined habitat use, and tested hypotheses associated with factors influencing foraging and roost-site selection. Movements of radio-tagged sandpipers were tracked in the upper Bay of Fundy in August 2004 and 2005. In 2004, sandpipers from the Minas Basin, Nova Scotia and Chignecto Bay, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, were tracked, and in 2005, sandpipers were tracked only in Chignecto Bay. Sandpipers were highly mobile in both the Minas Basin 2004 and Chignecto Bay 2005, making daily movements of up to 20 km between foraging and roosting sites, although very little movement was detected in Chignecto Bay in 2004. Migrating sandpipers appeared to select foraging sites based on relative safety, as measured by distance to cover, provided that these sites offered an adequate food supply. Similarly, roosting sandpipers preferred sites that were far from nearby trees that might offer cover to predators. This preference for safe sites became more apparent later in their stay in the Bay of Fundy, when birds were heavier and, therefore, possibly more vulnerable to predation. Semipalmated Sandpipers appear to be flexible during their time in the upper Bay of Fundy, displaying year-to-year and site-to-site variability in movement and mudflat usage. Therefore, multiple, synchronized population counts should be conducted at known roost sites in order to more accurately estimate Semipalmated Sandpiper abundance in this region. Furthermore, in a highly dynamic system where food can be variable, landscape features such as distance to cover may be important factors to consider when selecting candidate sites for shorebird conservation measures.

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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.245 · 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

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→