King Eider (Somateria Spectabilis) Brood Ecology: Correlates of Duckling Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Events during duckling growth can influence waterfowl population dynamics. To gain insight into King Eider (Somateria spectabilis) brood ecology, we monitored 111 and 46 individually marked ducklings from broods of 23 and 11 radiomarked King Eiders during 2000 and 2001, respectively. We used capture-mark-resight data to model apparent survival of King Eider ducklings and broods, and multistratum analysis to estimate probabilities of (1) movement among habitats and (2) apparent survival of ducklings that used various habitats. In addition, we recorded length of stay for 7 and 18 radiomarked females with failed nesting attempts during 2000 and 2001, respectively. Complete loss of individual broods accounted for 84% of all duckling mortality (106 of 126 mortalities), with most brood loss (74%; 17 of 23 broods lost) within the first two days after hatch. Estimated apparent survival of ducklings to 24 days of age was 0.10 (95% CI: 0.05 to 0.15). Apparent survival of broods was estimated to be 0.31 (95% CI: 0.13 to 0.50). Our data suggested an interaction between female size and hatch date, whereby larger females whose ducklings also hatched earlier raised more ducklings than either small females or those with ducklings that hatched later. Overland brood movements ≥1 km occurred in both years, and survival was greatest for ducklings on smaller ponds away from the central nesting area at Karrak Lake, Nunavut. Females that experienced nest failure and total brood loss left the study area earlier than females with surviving ducklings. Écologie d'élevage des couvées de Somateria spectabilis : Corrélations avec la survie des canetons
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".