MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4380627441 · doi:10.29173/bluejay6339

First Nest Records of the Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris Melanotos) for Manitoba

2022· article· en· W4380627441 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
James Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueBlue Jay · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Museum of Natural HistoryUniversity of CanterburySmithsonian Institution
KeywordsSandpiperCalidrisNest (protein structural motif)GeographyZoologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pectoral Sandpiper (Calidris melanotos) has long been considered an uncommon migrant in Manitoba and a transient in spring and fall at Churchill.To help document its timeline and history in Manitoba, and Churchill in particular, the following notations would apply.In 1934, Taverner and Sutton referred to this species at Churchill as "A transient, more common in autumn than in spring" 1 and they offered no suggestion that this species had ever nested in Manitoba.In 1955, Mowat and Lawrie gave one spring record for Churchill and suggested that this species was rare in that area and in locations to the north such as Chesterfield Inlet (Igluligaarjuk). 2 In 1970, Jehl and Smith stated that "Pectoral Sandpipers are uncommon at Churchill" in spring and more common in fall. 3As well, they stated that "We have no evidence that Pectoral Sandpipers nest anywhere in the region."In 1975, Cooke et al. referred to the Pectoral Sandpiper as a rare summer visitor on Cape Churchill. 4n 1983, Lane and Chartier showed this species as irregular in spring and more common in fall, with no suggestion of breeding at Churchill. 5n 1986, Godfrey gives the breeding range as being along the coast of Yukon and Northwest Territories, Banks Island, and Melville Island,

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)0.000
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 score0.539
Threshold uncertainty score0.917

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlue Jay→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→