Diet of wintering Bald Eagles, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, in New Brunswick
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stocek, Rudolph F. 2000.Diet of wintering Bald Eagles, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, in New Brunswick.Canadian Field-Naturalist 114 (4): 605-611.The diet of wintering Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) in New Brunswick was determined from 949 feeding observations, 1992-1999.White-tailed Deer (Odocoileus virginianus) accounted for 43% of the total occurrences, offal 30%, birds 16%, other mammals 8%, fish 3% and invertebrates < 1%.Thirty-five percent of the prey items were of aquatic origin.There were considerable dietary differences between inland and coastal feeding eagles.Avian prey (seabirds and waterfowl) were of greater importance to the coastal birds.Salmon offal consumption at aquaculture sites along the coast was significant.Over 70% of the dietary items taken by immature eagles were scavenged deer and offal.Some of the prey items consumed showed a marked seasonal variation.Almost 60% of all feeding occurrences in February and March involved deer.Both birds and fish decreased in importance from late fall to early spring.Immature eagles were found more commonly in mixed feeding groups than as solitary foragers.The risk of environmental contaminant exposure is likely greater for coastal wintering eagles that feed more heavily on aquatic organisms than for inland wintering birds.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".