MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4256217737 · doi:10.1093/condor/104.1.156

Are Body Condition and Reproductive Effort of Laying Greater Snow Geese Affected by the Spring Hunt?

2002· article· en· W4256217737 on OpenAlexaffabout
Julien Mainguy, Joël Bêty, Gilles Gauthier, Jean‐François Giroux

Bibliographic record

VenueOrnithological Applications · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyAvian clutch sizeAnimal scienceGeographyReproductionHumanitiesEcologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A spring hunt was implemented on the staging areas of Greater Snow Geese (Chen caerulescens atlantica) in Quebec in 1999 and 2000. We evaluated whether this activity, which occurred during the period of spring nutrient storage, may have affected the body condition and reproductive effort of laying geese. We collected laying females in years with a spring hunt (1999–2000, n = 34) and compared them with birds collected in years without a hunt (1989–1990, n = 10). All indices of body condition and clutch size were significantly lower in years with a hunt than in years without, and laying dates were delayed. Tracking of radio-marked females on the staging and breeding areas showed that a lower proportion of females reached the nesting areas in years with a hunt (28% in 1999–2000, n = 80) than in years without (85% in 1997–1998, n = 80) and that fewer females nested (9% vs. 56%, respectively). Our results suggest that the spring hunt negatively affected nesting geese. ¿Son Afectadas por la Cacería de Primavera la Condición Física y el Esfuerzo Reproductivo de Chen caerulescens atlantica? Resumen. La cacería de primavera fue implementada en áreas de escala de Chen caerulescens atlantica en Quebec en 1999 y 2000. Evaluamos si la cacería, que se llevó a cabo durante el período primaveral de acumulación de nutrientes, pudo haber afectado la condición fisica y el esfuerzo reproductivo de los gansos. Colectamos hembras que estuvieran poniendo huevos en años con cacería de primavera (1999–2000, n = 34) y las comparamos con aves colectadas en años sin cacería (1989–1990, n = 10). Todos los índices de la condición física y del tamaño de la nidada fueron significativamente menores en años con cacería que en años sin cacería, y se retrasaron las fechas de puesta. El seguimiento de hembras marcadas con radio en áreas de escala y cría mostró que una menor proporción llegó a las áreas de nidificación en años con cacería (28% en 1999–2000, n = 80) que en años sin cacería (85% en 1997–1998, n = 80), y que menos hembras nidificaron (9% vs. 56%, respectivamente). Nuestros resultados sugieren que la cacería de primavera afecta negativamente a los gansos nidificantes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations25
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOrnithological ApplicationsSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207