MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4240244112 · doi:10.1139/z00-161

Geographic variation in foraging patterns of pre-incubating female Mallards

2000· article· en· W4240244112 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Bruce D. Dugger, Mark J. Petrie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnasForagingBiologyEcologyHabitatAvian clutch sizeProductivityRange (aeronautics)ZoologyReproduction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Differences in productivity between habitats in different parts of a duck's breeding range may influence how birds allocate time to meet the exogenous nutritional requirements of clutch formation. However, no study has compared activity patterns between birds in different portions of their breeding range. We used focal-bird observations to compare the time-activity patterns of pre-incubating female Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) in the prairie pothole region of Manitoba and North Dakota with those in eastern forested New Brunswick. Birds in eastern Canada had higher foraging effort (63.7 vs. 41.6%, P < 0.01) and spent less time in comfort (12.2 vs. 7.6%, P = 0.01) and locomotion (12.7 vs. 4.1%) activities than birds on the prairies. Females responded to lower productivity by devoting more time to foraging, which may be why Mallards in eastern Canada are able to lay first clutches that are equal in size to those of prairie Mallards.

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 score0.123
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→