Historical Distribution and Current Population Status of Tufted Puffins <i>Fratercula cirrhata</i> in Canada's California Current System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unpublished accounts indicate that the number of Tufted Puffin Fratercula cirrhata colonies in western Canada has declined in recent decades. However, a lack of recent colony count data makes it impossible to determine current trends. Here we compile published and unpublished information for Tufted Puffins in the Canadian portion of the California Current System (i.e., from the vicinity of the Scott Islands south to the Canada-US border) to update understanding of the species’ status in the region, and to assemble available information in a single source. We found historical records of three additional colonies over those in pre-existing compilations, bringing the total count for the region to 19. However, 11 of these are currently extirpated and another three likely so. All but one of these extirpated colonies are ‘very small’ (historical mode of counts, 1–3 pairs), reflecting patterns of Tufted Puffin colony loss in US waters to the south. Two larger puffin colonies (historical counts, 20–50 pairs) underwent abandonment in the 1990s, but one of these appears to have been recolonized recently. Tufted Puffin numbers at Canada’s largest colony, Triangle Island, are likely stable. A lack of standardized monitoring of these colonies, with the exception of Triangle Island, makes it challenging to understand population trends, undertake restoration work, or mitigate current threats.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".