MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2199870220

Impacts of introduced Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) on least auklets (Aethia pusilla) breeding at Kiska Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska during 2001-2003

2004· dissertation· en· W2199870220 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Heather L. Major

Bibliographic record

VenueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University) · 2004
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsForagingBiologySeabirdPredationReproductive successZoologyPopulationEcologyBreeding pairDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I quantified impacts of non-indigenous Norway rats on Least Auklets breeding at Kiska Island. Little direct evidence of rat predation was found in my productivity crevices, nevertheless hundreds of rat-predated Least Auklet adults, chicks and eggs were found at the auklet colony and in rat hoards. My estimate of adult Least Auklet survival from Kiska (0.88 in 2001- 2002) was similar to values estimated by others. Yet in these years reproductive success was the lowest ever recorded (0.16 and 0.09) in the Aleutians. Norway rats foraging within the auklet colony were larger in size and showed increased reproductive activity than those foraging off the auklet colony. A simple population viability analysis, using current vital rate estimates, revealed that Least Auklets on Kiska are likely experiencing a rapid population decline. Continued monitoring and mitigation plans are required to further address the impacts of rats on auklets at Kiska.

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)0.000
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations5
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMemorial University Research Repository (Memorial University)→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→