MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7008070986

Assessing a Loggerhead shrike captive-release program using reproductive success and telemetry

2007· dissertation· en· W7008070986 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2007
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShrikeReproductive successTelemetryReproductionEndangered speciesBreeding pairPredationAnimal sexual behaviour
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The eastern race of the Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus ssp. migrans) is a grassland bird federally listed as endangered. There are approximately 30 pairs remaining in the Canadian wild today. Captive breeding and release programs have been developed in Canada to help alleviate the decline. However, little is known about the fate of the released birds and the factors influencing their reproductive success. To help in the understanding of the movement, behaviour and survival of the shrikes post-release, we tested whether radio telemetry was an effective technique to follow these birds. Despite limited behavioural effects in captivity, a tail-mount was not suitable for released Loggerhead shrikes due to unreliable retention times. The second portion of this study addressed the factors influencing reproductive success in captivity, including breeding behaviour and individual characteristics. Distance between individual pairs in their cages, female nesting activity and male origin were the best predictors of success. Recommendations for managers are made.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→