MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206930164 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v135i3.2675

Eighteenth census of seabirds breeding in the sanctuaries of the North Shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, 2015

2022· article· en· W4206930164 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jean‐François Rail

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaParks Canada
KeywordsSeabirdUria aalgeGeographyPopulationFisheryShoreCensusEcologyPredationBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1925, ten migratory bird sanctuaries were created on the North Shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and their breeding seabird populations have been censused every five years since. Between 2010 and 2015, only three alcid species exhibited positive population trends (Razorbill [Alca torda], Common Murre [Uria aalge], and Atlantic Puffin [Fratercula arctica]), while the remaining 13 species showed declining trends. Leach’s Storm-Petrel (Hydrobates leucorhous) and Caspian Tern (Hydroprogne caspia) are on the verge of disappearing from the sanctuaries, and the prolonged and rapid decline in Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) is worrisome. Based on historical records since 1925, it appears that seabird communities are faring well in some sanctuaries (e.g., Baie de Brador, Îles aux Perroquets, and Îles Sainte-Marie), while numbers are at low levels in others (e.g., Île à la Brume, Baie des Loups, and Saint-Augustin). Human disturbance, harvest of seabirds (eggs and birds), and predation are among the issues potentially most affecting seabird populations on the North Shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence.

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 score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207