Survival of Large Gulls Breeding in Eastern Newfoundland, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to human activity and ecosystem changes, large gulls in eastern North America have shown a variety of population trends over the last 100 years. Seven years of capture-mark-recapture data were analyzed for Herring (Larus argentatus) and Great Black-backed (L. marinus) gulls breeding in eastern Newfoundland, Canada to estimate apparent survival and survival rates. Estimated survival was 0.864 for Great Black-backed Gulls and 0.837 for Herring Gulls. For both species, the survival rate calculated using live and dead encounters was higher than the apparent survival rate calculated from resighting data only and added almost an additional year of expected life. While these values are in the range of survival rates reported from other studies along the eastern coast of North America, the values for Herring Gulls were lower than survival rates reported elsewhere in North America and Europe. The lower survival rates seen in eastern North American Herring Gulls may be attributable to characteristics of the migration and wintering habitat, including poorer habitat quality (i.e., highly developed and industrialized east coast) and possibly gull (Laridae) control programs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".