MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7018745270

EGG COLLECTION AND RECRUITMENT OF YOUNG OF THE YEAR IN THE ARANSASI\nWOOD BUFFALO POPULATION OF WHOOPING CRANES

2001· article· en· W7018745270 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJuvenileWildlifePopulationNational parkNest (protein structural motif)FishingNesting seasonWildlife refuge
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present data for 61 years (1938 to 1998) on the recruitment of juvenile (i.e., young-of-the-year) whooping cranes (Grus americana) for the 1 natural wild population that nests in the vicinity of Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP) in Canada and migrates annually to wintering grounds in the vicinity of Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) on the Gulf coast of Texas in the United States. We divide these years into 2 data sets: years during which 1 of 2 eggs was collected from WBNP nests (to develop captive populations and to conduct reintroduction experiments), and years during which no eggs were collected. We compare these 2 sets of years in terms of recruitment of juveniles into the AransasIWood Buffalo Population (A WP) and fall arrivals at ANWR of "twin" juvenile birds with one set of parents. Recruitment of juvenile birds into the A WP (defined as the percent of juvenile cranes in the A WP arriving at ANWR in the fall) was significantly (P = 0.032) greater during years of no egg collection at the nesting grounds. During the 34 years of no egg collection at WBNP, 16 pairs of "twin" juveniles arrived at ANWR in the fall. During the 27 years of egg collection at the nesting grounds, no pairs of "twin" juveniles arrived at ANWR in the fall.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207