Timing of nesting of upland-nesting ducks in the Canadian prairies and its relation to spring wetland conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Timing of breeding varies among waterfowl species and individuals, with strong effects on reproductive success, and may be related to habitat quality. Here, we analyse the start, span, and end of the nesting season for nine upland-nesting duck species at 166 Canadian Prairie–Parkland sites over 34 years to better characterize nesting patterns and test whether and how species respond to May pond abundances. Nesting metrics were compared between single-site versus multiple-site studies over 7 years to evaluate the effects of spatial scale and methodology. Strong, consistent differences in start of nesting were found among duck species, being earliest for Northern Pintail (Anas acuta L., 1758) and Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos L., 1758), followed by Northern Shoveler (Anas clypeata L., 1758), American Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca carolinensis Gmelin, 1789 = Anas carolinensis Gmelin, 1789), Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors L., 1766), American Wigeon (Anas americana Gmelin, 1789), Gadwall (Anas strepera L., 1758), and lastly by Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis (Eyton, 1838)) and White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca deglandi (Bonaparte, 1850)). Span and end of nesting were related to May pond abundances, but the strength of these relationships varied among species, presumably reflecting the flexible (re-)nesting potential of individuals of some species in response to wetland-habitat quality.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".