MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6979792978

Age at First Return and Breeding of Razorbills (Alca torda) on the Gannet Islands, Labrador and Machias Sea Island, New Brunswick

2008· article· en· W6979792978 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeasonal breederPhilopatryFur sealNesting seasonMark and recapture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Resightings of Razorbills ( Alca torda ) banded as chicks on the Gannet Islands, Labrador (N = 1,873 resightings of 638 individuals) and Machias Seal Island, New Brunswick (N = 870 resightings of 291 individuals) were used to estimate the timing and age at first return to the natal colony and age at first breeding. In total, 14 one-year-old and 110 two-year-old birds were observed on land. All one- and two-year-old birds were seen for the first time on the islands late in the breeding season after laying had occurred, with two-year-olds returning to the colony on average three weeks earlier than one-year-old birds. Age at first breeding was significantly lower on Machias Seal Island than the Gannet Islands, 3.88 ± 0.13 SE and 4.40 ± 0.13 SE years, respectively (range two to six years, N = 123). Four two-year-old birds were observed engaging in courtship and breeding behaviors, including copulation. Overall, age at first return and breeding was lower than for known European Razorbill colonies and is likely due to low breeding densities and fidelity at the two North American colonies studied. Received 27 February 2007, accepted 09 October 2007.

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)0.000
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 score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.188 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→