Wetland fidelity of female Mallard Anas platyrhynchos and Gadwall Anas strepera during brood rearing.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nest site fidelity is well-documented in several duck species (Anderson et al. 1992) but occurrence of and factors affecting fidelity to broodrearing locations have received limited attention.Seymour & Jackson (1996, p. 1162) indicated that some broodrearing female Black Ducks A. rubripes returned to natal brood-rearing areas.Because nest site fidelity is strong in Mallard and Gadwall (Clark & Shutler 1999;Lokemoen et al. 1990), fidelity to brood-rearing wetlands might also be expected because some evidence for this behaviour has been reported in Canvasback Aythya valisineria (Leonard et al. 1996), Barrow's Goldeneye Bucephala islandica (S.Boyd, Canadian Wildlife Service, personal communication) and Bufflehead B. albeola (G.Gauthier, Laval University, personal communication), species that also display strong nesting site fidelity.However, fidelity could be stronger in experienced females than in their naïve female offspring, as reported for nest site fidelity (i.e.natal versus breeding dispersal in birds, Greenwood & Harvey 1982).In addition, females that fledge relatively more ducklings should exhibit greater fidelity than females with low or no fledging success (e.g.Lindberg & Sedinger 1998).Increasing distance between successive nest attempts could weaken fidelity if distance to previously used wetlands exceeds the distance that females are willing or able to move
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".