MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2331429236 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2012-0233

The Red Knot (<i>Calidris canutus rufa</i>) decline in the western hemisphere: is there a lemming connection?

2012· article· en· W2331429236 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
James D. Fraser, Sarah M. Karpanty, Jonathan B. Cohen, Barry R. Truitt

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayBiologyCalidrisArcticEcologyKnot (papermaking)RodentSouthern HemisphereZoologyHabitatGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numbers of Western Atlantic Red Knots (Calidris canutus rufa (A. Wilson, 1813)) have declined since 1980, with a sustained downward trend observed after 1998. Because the reproductive output of a closely related Eurasian subspecies (Calidris canutus islandica (L., 1767)) is known to be low when lemming numbers are low, and because lemming cycles in Fennoscandia were recently interrupted, we investigated the relationship between the rodent cycle in arctic Canada and numbers of C. c. rufa migrating through the United States. Shooting records from Cape Cod in the 1800s and Red Knot counts on the Delaware Bay from 1986 to 1998 cycled with 4-year periods. Annual peaks in numbers of Red Knots stopping in the Delaware Bay in 1986–1998 occurred 2 years after arctic rodent peaks more often than expected at random. The results suggest that the reproductive output of C. c. rufa was linked to the rodent cycle before the Red Knot decline. There is no evidence that such a link existed after 1998. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that an interruption of the rodent cycle in Red Knot habitat could have been a driver in the recent Red Knot decline. Field studies in the Arctic are needed to further investigate this hypothesis.

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 score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.502

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations16
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207