MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3023706406 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v133i4.2221

Occurrence of anthropogenic litter in nestling Tree Swallows (<i>Tachycineta bicolor</i>)

2020· article· en· W3023706406 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Stephanie Walsh, Jennifer Haughton, Lee Bellan, Isabelle Gosselin, Amy Festarini, David Lee, Marilyne Stuart

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicNuclear and radioactivity studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooAlgonquin CollegeCanadian Nuclear Laboratories
FundersCanadian Nuclear LaboratoriesEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsLitterBiologyAnasPlant litterZoologyGritAnimal scienceEcologyNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While undertaking a study of the effects of strontium-90 on Tree Swallow (Tachycineta bicolor) near Chalk River, Ontario, we noticed the presence of anthropogenic litter (pieces of metal, glass, and plastic, and paper, plastic, and foil wrappers, >1 mm in size) in the nestlings. Although combustible litter (pieces of plastic and wrappers) were not quantified before the nestlings were incinerated in 2014 and 2015, gizzards were dissected in 2016. Litter (>1 mm diameter) was found in 30% of the 74 nestlings examined. This material is most likely provided to nestlings, along with food (insects) and natural grit (sand, stones, and mollusc shells), which we also found, by parent birds; however, it could lead to internal injuries and/or harmful substances being absorbed by the young birds.

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)0.000
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 score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.223
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist→Same topicNuclear and radioactivity studies→French-language works237,207→