MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3129503975

Mallard Brood Movements in the Canadian Prairie Parklands

2007· article· en· W3129503975 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Garnet Raven, Todd W. Arnold, David W. Howerter, Llwellyn M. Armstrong

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBroodGeographyEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We radiotracked 308 mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) broods from hatching until 30 days of age Oij 15 study areas located throughout the Canadian Prairie Parklands to examine patterns of variation in movement frequency and distance. Broods moved an average of 350 m from nests to first wetlands (SO = 390), with 94% of broods moving less than I km. After leaving the nest, broods had a 23% probability of moving to a new wetland each day, but movement probability was a complex function of study area, hatch date, and ducking age, with younger and earlier-hatched broods exhibiting greater movement rates than older and later-hatched broods. Later-hatched broods moved farther than earlierhatched broods and movement distance also varied among study areas. Local wetland characteristics explained some of the among-site variation in movement rates and distances, with movement probability being most strongly correlated with average size of semipermanent wetlands and movement distance being most strongly correlated with total acreage of seasonal wetlands. After 30 days, broods were located an average of 760 m (SO = 610) from their nests, with 95% of all surviving broods located less than 2 km from their nests. Our data illustrated the need for suitable brood-rearing wetlands within a reasonable distance (e.g., < 0.5 km) of waterfowl nesting cover.

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 score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.890

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207