MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2942536116 · doi:10.1093/condor/duy014

Resource selection and wintering phenology of White-winged Scoters in southern New England: Implications for offshore wind energy development

2019· article· en· W2942536116 on OpenAlexaff
Dustin E. Meattey, Scott R. McWilliams, Peter W. C. Paton, Christine Lepage, Scott G. Gilliland, Lucas Savoy, Glenn H. Olsen, Jason E. Osenkowski

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological Applications · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersRhode Island Department of Environmental Management
KeywordsHabitatRange (aeronautics)Continental shelfPhenologyOffshore wind powerOceanographyResource (disambiguation)Environmental scienceGeographyEcologySubmarine pipelineFisheryWind powerBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Southern New England provides key wintering habitat for White-winged Scoters (Melanitta fusca). This area has also pioneered the development of offshore wind energy in North America. The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) has established 9 Wind Energy Area (WEA) lease blocks along the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf in areas that may provide important staging and wintering habitat for scoters and other species of sea ducks. Concern over the potential impact of offshore wind energy on sea duck populations has led to efforts to develop models to understand their distribution, habitat use, and site fidelity. We used satellite telemetry to document winter phenology and site fidelity, as well as fine-scale resource selection and habitat use, of 40 White-winged Scoters along the southern New England continental shelf. Scoters spent over half of the annual cycle on the wintering grounds and demonstrated a high degree of interannual site fidelity to composite core-use areas. Sizes of individual 50% core-use home ranges were variable (X¯ = 868 km2; range: 32–4,220 km2) and individual 95% utilization distributions ranged widely (X¯ = 4,388 km2; range: 272–18,235 km2). More than half of all tagged birds occupied 2 or more discrete core-use areas that were up to 400 km apart. Throughout the study area, scoters selected areas with lower salinity, lower sea surface temperature, higher chlorophyll-a concentrations, and higher hard-bottom substrate probability. Resource selection function models classified 18,649 km2 (23%) of the study area as high probability of use, which included or immediately bordered ~420 km2 of proposed WEA lease blocks. Future offshore wind energy developments in the region should avoid key habitats highlighted by this study and carefully consider the environmental characteristics selected by sea ducks when planning and siting future WEAs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrnithological ApplicationsSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207