Effects of a Hazing-Light System on Migration and Collision Avoidance of Eiders at an Artificial Oil-Production Island, Arctic Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During migration, Common and King Eiders (Somateria mollissima and S. spectabilis) cross the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas of Arctic Alaska. Because they may become attracted to lights, eiders are susceptible to collision with structures, including offshore oil facilities. We used ornithological radar in 2001 – 04 to characterize the behavior of eiders migrating past Northstar Island, an oil-production island near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, and to assess the effects of a hazing-light system on migrating eiders. “Eider” radar targets exhibited pulsed, irregular periods of movement; movement rates were higher when sea ice was present, without precipitation, and during tailwinds and crosswinds but were not affected by lights. Velocities (ground speeds) were higher when ice was present and with strong tailwinds. They were lower at night when the lights were on, but higher during the day when the lights were on. Radar targets exhibited little variation in flight behavior as they passed the island; the proportion of non-directional behavior was larger when ice was present, with tailwinds, with weak winds, and near the full moon when it was not visible. Lights had no effect on flight behavior. Birds tended to exhibit more course changes as they approached the island, greater angular changes when they changed course, and larger net increases in passing distance as a result of those course changes when the lights were on; however, none of these differences were statistically significant. Overall, the hazing lights at Northstar did not disrupt the birds’ migratory movements but resulted in increased avoidance of the island.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".