The role of wind fetch in structuring Antarctic seabird breeding occupancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avian breeding sites located along shorelines may allow easy access to aquatic food sources, but risk exposing birds and nests to high wind and wave action. One measure of exposure is wind fetch, the distance of open water over which wind can blow uninterrupted. By calculating fetch weighted by prevailing wind direction for breeding colonies of pursuit‐diving seabirds in the Antarctic Peninsula, we show that different members of this guild have opposing relationships to coastline exposure. Gentoo Penguins Pygoscelis papua preferentially occupied more enclosed sites with lower fetch. Surprisingly, however, Chinstrap Penguins Pygoscelis antarcticus and Antarctic Shags Leucocarbo bransfieldensis appear to prefer more exposed sites. Although considerable research has been devoted to understanding Antarctic seabird habitat suitability, the role of wind and wave exposure has not been considered in depth, in part because comprehensive data on colony presence and absence have only recently been made available. We propose several mechanisms for why fetch may act to differentiate niches among this guild. These findings may increase our ability to identify suitable breeding areas for these and other near‐shore breeding species as they respond to climate change.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".