MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W63000091 · doi:10.5962/p.363951

Habitat use, movements, and survival of American Black Duck, Anas rubripes, and Mallard, A. platyrhynchos, broods in agricultural landscapes of southern Quebec

2000· article· en· W63000091 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Charles Maisonneuve, A. Desrosiers, Raymond McNicoll

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des Forêts
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnasHabitatGeographyEcologyFisheryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

American Black Duck and Mallard females were equipped with radiotransmitters in order to identify habitats used during brood-rearing, to quantify brood movements and to assess survival.The majority (96%) of the 134 brood sightings were made on waterways: 59% on streams, 19% in ditches, and 19% on mill ponds created on these streams.Mean proportions of sightings per brood were greater on streams (64%) and ditches (31%) for Black Ducks (64%), whereas for Mallards these were greater on streams (43%) and mill ponds (37%).Broods of both species made extensive movements, mainly along waterways.Overland movements and maximum distances from the nest were greater for Black Ducks than for Mallards.Daily survival rates (DSR) of broods of both species were similar.DSRs were lower for Class I broods (0.921) than for Class II broods (0.988).The probability of broods of both species surviving to 30 days was relatively similar (95% CI for Black Duck: 0.134-0.206,95% CI for Mallard: 0.186-0.232).Results of this study indicate a lack of adequate broodrearing marsh habitat in the agricultural landscapes of southern Québec where extensive drainage work has been carried out.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207