MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4206147126 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260339

The annual cycle for whimbrel populations using the Western Atlantic Flyway

2021· article· en· W4206147126 on OpenAlexafffund
Bryan D. Watts, Fletcher M. Smith, Chance Hines, Laura Duval, Diana J. Hamilton, Tim Keyes, Julie Paquet, Lisa Pirie‐Dominix, Jennie Rausch, Barry R. Truitt, Brad Winn, Paul Woodard

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaMount Allison University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceNature ConservancyEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversité de MonctonFonds en Fiducie pour la Faune du Nouveau-BrunswickNational Fish and Wildlife Foundation
KeywordsFlywayAnnual cycleBayGeographyPopulationLimitingHabitatEcologyDeltaSpring (device)Bird migrationPhysical geographyFisheryBiologyDemographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many long-distance migratory birds use habitats that are scattered across continents and confront hazards throughout the annual cycle that may be population-limiting. Identifying where and when populations spend their time is fundamental to effective management. We tracked 34 adult whimbrels (Numenius phaeopus) from two breeding populations (Mackenzie Delta and Hudson Bay) with satellite transmitters to document the structure of their annual cycles. The two populations differed in their use of migratory pathways and their seasonal schedules. Mackenzie Delta whimbrels made long (22,800 km) loop migrations with different autumn and spring routes. Hudson Bay whimbrels made shorter (17,500 km) and more direct migrations along the same route during autumn and spring. The two populations overlap on the winter grounds and within one spring staging area. Mackenzie Delta whimbrels left the breeding ground, arrived on winter grounds, left winter grounds and arrived on spring staging areas earlier compared to whimbrels from Hudson Bay. For both populations, migration speed was significantly higher during spring compared to autumn migration. Faster migration was achieved by having fewer and shorter stopovers en route. We identified five migratory staging areas including four that were used during autumn and two that were used during spring. Whimbrels tracked for multiple years had high (98%) fidelity to staging areas. We documented dozens of locations where birds stopped for short periods along nearly all migration routes. The consistent use of very few staging areas suggests that these areas are integral to the annual cycle of both populations and have high conservation value.

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)0.001
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations12
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→