MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415937670 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2025-0042

Stock composition of juvenile salmon taken by an abundant, pursuit-diving seabird in the coastal waters of British Columbia, Canada

2025· article· en· W4415937670 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
J. Mark Hipfner, Strahan Tucker, Terry D. Beacham, Marc Trudel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersBonneville Power AdministrationFisheries and Oceans CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsJuvenileSeabirdStock (firearms)PredationHerringAbundance (ecology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We determined the stock composition of juvenile salmon taken by a pursuit-diving seabird, the Rhinoceros Auklet ( Cerorhinca monocerata), on five breeding colonies in British Columbia in 2012–2014. Our goal was to test the hypothesis that these birds take salmon in proportion to their abundance, with specific focus on first, the biennial cycle of pink salmon; and second, the enormous out-migration of juvenile sockeye from BC's Fraser River in 2012. We obtained 772 meals in 11 colony-years of sampling, of which 198 (26%) included one or more salmon, and determined stock composition for 126 pink, 101 sockeye, and 113 chum. As expected, the biennial cycle of pink salmon was evident in the birds’ diets: individuals from Puget Sound were common on colonies in 2012 and 2014 but absent in 2013 and replaced by pinks from northerly stocks. Also as expected, Fraser River sockeye were unusually abundant in the birds’ diets in 2012. Our results show that these seabirds can respond to pulses of increased abundance of juvenile salmon, although they are not usually primary prey types.

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)0.001
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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.192 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→