Habitat use, movements, and survival of American Black Duck, Anas rubripes, and Mallard, A. platyrhynchos, broods in agricultural landscapes of southern Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Habitat use, movements, and survival of American Black Duck, Anus rubripes, and Mallard, A. platyrhynchos, broods in agricultural landscapes of southern Québec.Canadian Field-Naturalist 114(2): 201-210.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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".