MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7092185393 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.30375541

Complete dataset of loon productivity for Fuirst et al.

2025· dataset· W7092185393 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typedataset
Language
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicTheoretical and Computational Physics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProductivityPopulationRange (aeronautics)FishingEcosystemWilderness area

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Common Loon (<i>Gavia immer</i>) is an iconic waterbird of the northern wilderness and an indicator of the health of aquatic ecosystems. We conducted a benchmark comparison of productivity rates and long-term trends in productivity (six-week-old young raised per territorial pair) from 46,401 breeding events across 12 different study populations throughout the southern portion of species’ breeding range in North America. While all regions showed long-term mean productivity rates at or above the threshold considered necessary for population stability (0.48 chicks fledged per territorial pair), we found significant declines in productivity (-0.17− -2.8% per year over 19−48 years) in seven regions, non-significant but downward trends in four others, and a non-significant increase in one region (Maine). Even though productivity is only one of three demographic parameters that dictate the stability of a population, long-term decreases in productivity signal looming population declines in Ontario, the Prairie and Atlantic provinces, New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire. We suggest that a variety of region-specific anthropomorphic and natural factors, in addition to increased rainfall secondary to climate change are at fault for such declines. Discovery of causes of productivity decline might lead to successful efforts to mitigate them, thus stabilizing or increasing loon populations.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0480.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicTheoretical and Computational PhysicsFrench-language works237,207