MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7000453709

Evidence for Northern Waterthrushes Breeding in Southeast Wyoming

2003· article· en· W7000453709 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationIndigenousFishingVegetation (pathology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Northern Waterthrush ($eiurus noveboracensis) is an uncommon but regular visitor to Wyoming during migration and has been documented across much of the state (Dorn and Dorn 1999, Luce et al. 1999).It is suspected to breed at least occasionally in Teton County in northwestern Wyoming (Dorn and Dorn 1999, Luce et al. 1999).In southeastern Wyoming, 20 miles west of the city of Laramie along the Little Laramie River, 11 individuals were captured during three seasons of bird banding for a MAPS (Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship) study.During the summers of 2000, 2001, and 2002 six individuals were recaptured within the same year and three were recaptured in more than one year.Four males and three females were in breeding condition.For three months in 2002 at least two waterthrushes established territories along a small portion of the river, as evidenced by singing males observed each day of MAPS operation.If territories were established during the 2000 and 2001 seasons they remained undetected.The Northern Waterthrush is known to breed from Virginia north through the northeastern United States, west across much of Canada and Alaska, and south through the Rocky Mountains of Idaho and western Montana (Eaton 1995, American Ornithologists' Union 1998).Disjunct populations are known from northern North Dakota, southern Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.These outposts lie relatively close to the species' core range farther north, but another oufiying population, in southcentral Oregon, is approximately 400 miles from the main breeding range in the northern Rocky Mountains (Eaton 1995).Northern Waterthrush breeding has been recenfiy documented twice along the Michigan River in north-central Colorado and is suspected more widely in the area (Kingew 1998).These observations were approximately 45 miles south of capture locations along the Little Laramie River in Wyoming and 350 miles southeast of the known southern limit of distribution in the Rocky Mountains (Figure 1).Although Wyoming was not mentioned specifically by the AOU (1998) or Eaton (1995), the Northern Waterthrush is a rare summer resident in the northwestern part of the state and an uncommon migrant throughout (Dorn and Dorn 1999, Luce et al. 1999).Most Wyoming observations have been presumed to represent migrants, a presumption that may need to be reconsidered in light of recent evidence of breeding in the southeast.During three seasons of MAPS banding, I captured five males, two females, one juvenile, and three individuals of unknown sex and age between 3 June and 6 August (Table 1).Each year's banding schedule consisted of a total of seven days each separated by at least one week.Sex was determined by the presence of a cloacal protuberance or brood patch, age by plumage or molt.Three individuals were captured over two consecutive seasons, and six were captured twice during a single season.It was unclear if the juvenile was fledged locally or captured during migration, but the same individual was recaptured the following year.Although external sexual characters can persist after breeding, the presence of these characters in combination with consistent recaptures, the capture of a juvenile, and the detection of at least two territories along 700 m of the stream are strong evidence for local breeding.This finding raises two related questions.First, were Northern Waterthrushes

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)0.001
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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.158 · 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
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida)Same topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207