Recoveries of Herring Gulls Banded at Cape Ann, Massachusetts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
localities from which recoveries were made.The number banded each year, the number of recoveries from that year-class, and the number of recoveries made each year are shown in Table 1.Harris (1964) found that the majority of recoveries of Herring Gulls he banded as young birds were made during the first year of life and particularly in the first few months after fledging.Likewise, the first-year gulls in this study formed the largest year-class of recoveries (36.4%) with the longest distance (1,307 miles) and largest average distance [159.6 miles) from the banding site.Recoveries were made in all months of the year, except February, but 65% of the recoveries were obtained between June--August.Because of corrosion and abrasion, Herring Gulls are known to lose their bands in time.This was pointed out by Poulding (1954) and Harris (1964).Kadlec and Drury (1968) suggest that "The rate of band loss is initially low, increases rapidly from age 4 to 6, and then remains relatively constant," and the following year (1969) they estimated that 45% of the bands were lost by the end of the third year.Undoubtedly, band loss explains the small number of recoveries after the sixth year, obtained in this study.Ten birds had multiple recovery records (4, two times; 2, three times; 1, four times; 3, five times).The greatest number of returns occurred in 1963.The oldest recoveries were as follows: 12 yrs., 3 mo.--FairfieldBeach, Connecticut 10 yrs., I mo.--ParkerRiver (Rowley), Massachusetts 11 yrs., 3 mo.--Wakefield,Massachusetts 10 yrs., 2 mo.--Gloucester,Massachusetts 9 yrs., 1 mo.--Chatham,Massachusetts 8 yrs., 0 mo.--Portland,Maine Marshall (1947) found only 1% of his banded Herring Gulls to survive for ten years.His oldest record was 17 years.However, Ludwig (1963) obtained a return after 22 years.It is generally believed that
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".