Body Mass of Long-Tailed Ducks (Clangula Hyemalis) During Incubation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigated body-mass dynamics during incubation of Long-tailed Ducks (Clangula hyemalis) nesting in Canada’s central Arctic, 1998–2003. Long-tailed Duck females (n = 37) lost 7% of pre-incubation body mass during incubation; on average, females weighed 618 ± 15 g (mean ± SE) at clutch completion and 575 ± 11 g at hatch. Given the differences in body size, Long-tailed Ducks relied less on endogenous reserves than sympatric King Eiders (Somateria spectabilis), but lost less mass than similar-sized waterfowl species nesting in temperate climates. Preliminary data suggest that Long-tailed Ducks maintain similar or higher nest-attendance rates than temperate-nesting waterfowl of similar size, and we suggest that access to locally abundant, high-quality foods enable Long-tailed Duck females to maintain high incubation constancy without sacrificing female body condition. Nevertheless, Long-tailed Ducks appear to differ widely from most Arctic-nesting waterfowl in nutritional strategy for nesting. Masse corporelle chez l’Harelde kakawi (Clangula hyemalis) au cours de l’incubation
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".