Where’s the best supermarket deal? Female Southern Rockhopper Penguins (<i>Eudyptes chrysocome</i>) show variable foraging areas during the guard stage at Isla de los Estados, Argentina
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the spatial distribution of seabirds contributes to comprehending their ecological requirements and dispersion patterns. We studied the at-sea distribution of female Southern Rockhopper Penguins (Eudyptes chrysocome (J.R. Forster, 1781)) at Isla de los Estados colony during the early chick-rearing period. We used a clustering analysis approach to identify different groups according to the foraging trip (tracking and diving data from GPS and temperature and depth data loggers) and diet (δ15N composition on blood samples) characteristics. Foraging trips differed in duration, location, and dive depths explored. Females in clusters 1 and 3 traveled longer distances and in opposite directions (36.3 ± 21.3 and 40.3 ± 14.0 km, respectively). Females in cluster 2 fed closer to the colony (16.8 ± 7.8 km). Dives occurred in pelagic habitats. Higher δ15N values suggested a greater proportion of fish (e.g., the Fuegian sprat, Sprattus fuegensis (Jenyns, 1842)) consumption in the northern foraging areas (cluster 1). The variability observed in the spatial distribution suggests flexibility in the foraging behavior of Southern Rockhopper Penguins and availability of adequate foraging areas within the colony range during the early chick-rearing period, both important features for Southern Rockhopper Penguin population. These results contribute to understanding the use of the Southern Ocean by marine mesopredators and top predators and to the marine spatial planning in the area.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".