Spacing Patterns, Mating Systems, and Winter Philopatry in Harlequin Ducks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many species of waterfowl form pair bonds during the nonbreeding season, yet current descriptions of mating systems and patterns of philopatry in waterfowl focus on the breeding grounds. We studied wintering Harlequin Ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus) in southwestern British Columbia to examine mating systems and philopatric behavior outside of the breeding season. The number of males at our study area was far more variable than that of females. Males that were unsuccessful in obtaining a mate were observed over a larger area than were paired males. Habitat use overlapped considerably among paired males, and no territorial boundaries were formed. Annual return rates to the nonbreeding grounds were high for both sexes (62% for females, 77% for males). Individuals not only returned to the general study area, but also to specific sections within the study area. Males that did not pair in the previous year returned to the study area in the subsequent year with the same frequency as males that had obtained mates; however, they tended to leave the study area prior to courtship. Therefore, it is possible that males return to the same wintering grounds each year to reunite with a previous mate. High levels of philopatry by both sexes allow pairs to reunite in fall, potentially increasing the benefits of philopatry for both sexes.
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) | 0.004 | 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".