Habitat Use and Foraging Patterns of Molting Male Long-tailed Ducks in Lagoons of the Central Beaufort Sea, Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From mid-July through September, 10 000 to 30 000 Long-tailed Ducks (Clangula hyemalis) use the lagoon systems of the central Beaufort Sea for remigial molt. Little is known about their foraging behavior and patterns of habitat use during this flightless period. We used radio transmitters to track male Long-tailed Ducks through the molt period from 2000 to 2002 in three lagoons: one adjacent to industrial oil field development and activity and two in areas without industrial activity. We found that an index to time spent foraging generally increased through the molt period. Foraging, habitat use, and home range size showed similar patterns, but those patterns were highly variable among lagoons and across years. Even with continuous daylight during the study period, birds tended to use offshore areas during the day for feeding and roosted in protected nearshore waters at night. We suspect that variability in behaviors associated with foraging, habitat use, and home range size are likely influenced by availability of invertebrate prey. Proximity to oil field activity did not appear to affect foraging behaviors of molting Long-tailed Ducks.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".