Mackenzie River Peregrine Falcon Surveys 1966–2018
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author with assistants monitored the breeding distribution of Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus) along the length of the Mackenzie River, Northwest Territories, Canada from 1966 to 2018. This river traverses a thousand miles (1600 km) of the western Canadian Arctic from Great Slave Lake to the Beaufort Sea and roughly parallels the eastern slope of the Mackenzie Mountain cordillera between latitudes 61 degrees N and 68 degrees N. \n \nAll potential nest sites have been checked on each survey and counts of nest sites occupied (at least one bird seen) decreased from the count of 12 sites in 1966 to the lowest count of 7 in 1972. In 1990 the count was 37 and up to 2018 the highest count was 75 in 2010. \n \nA count of nest sites successfully producing young was variable with a low of 5 in 1972 to a high of 58 in 2011. Production of young averaged 2.43/successful site from 1990 until 2018 (excluding 2012). Production of young averaged 1.4/occupied site over this period. Recent increases in availability of passerine prey because of widespread fires in the last decades are felt to be the latest phenomena affecting these birds (pers.obs.) Prey utilized by Peregrines was studied over a period of four years and passerines composed 20% of their diet. Two species Lesser Scaup (Athya affinis) and Lesser Yellowlegs (Tringa flavipes) formed 25% of their diet.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".