Abundance and distribution of breeding waterfowl in the Great Clay Belt of northern Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abundance and distribution of breeding Baer! in the Great Clay Belt of northern Ontario.Canadian Field-Naturalist 116(1): 42-50.The abundance and distribution of breeding waterfowl in the Great Clay Belt of northern Ontario was determined through helicopter surveys of 117 fixed plots (2 X2 km each) during the nest initiation periods from 1988 to 1990.This area has higher fertility, flat topography, high water table and better access than the surrounding Boreal Forest, and therefore has greater potential for increased waterfowl production through habitat management.Overall breeding density averaged 112.5 indicated breeding pairs per 100 km?, 68% being of the four most common species [Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Ringnecked Duck (Aythya collaris), American Black Duck (Anas rubripes), and Common Goldeneye (Bucephala clangula)); 13 other species were encountered.The average total of breeding waterfowl for the region was estimated at 59330 pairs.Distributions of the species were related to ecodistrict and to surficial geology.The more northerly of the two main ecodistricts had higher densities of American Black Ducks, Ring-necked Ducks, Common Goldeneyes, and Canada Geese (Branta canadensis).Mallard and Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) distributions correlated with presence of surficial clay and moraines, respectively.Less common species including Green-winged Teal (Anas crecca) and American Wigeon (Anas americana) appeared to be concentrated in smaller-scaled habitat features (beaver pond sequences and estuarine marshes, respectively).Results generally agreed with those of earlier Clay Belt surveys.Total breeding density of waterfowl is slightly higher than that of surrounding regions.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".