77 © WILDLIFE BIOLOGY · 9:3 (2003) Effects of collar-attached transmitters on behaviour, pair bond and breeding success of snow geese Anser caerulescens atlanticus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
transmitters on behaviour, pair bond and breeding success of snow geese Anser caerulescens atlanticus.- Wildl. Biol. 9: 77-86. There is growing evidence that harnesses may not be an effective technique to attach radio-transmitters on geese. The use of neck collars is an alternative, but studies on the effect of collars with or without radios on geese have reached divergent conclusions. As our objective was to determine if radio neck collars affect behaviour, pair bonds and breeding success of greater snow geese Anser caerulescens atlanticus, we fitted 230 females with radio neck collars during the 1995-1998 moulting periods on Bylot Island, Nunavut. Data were subse-quently obtained for 159 birds on the staging and breeding grounds. Radios rep-resented 2.5 ± 0.1 % ( ± SE) of the birds’body mass. Unmarked geese and those fitted with conventional plastic collars served as controls. The behaviour of radio-collared geese was affected during the first fall after marking, but negative effects disappeared thereafter. Geese with conventional collars had similar behaviour as unmarked birds. Divorce rates were low for birds with conventional collars (0-4%), but were as great as 30 % for radio-collared geese. We suggest that the modified behaviour of the radio-collared females promoted separation from the male. Apparent breeding propensity, nest initiation date, clutch size and nest-ing success of radio-marked birds were also negatively affected. Until better alternatives are developed, we recommend minimizing the mass of radio col-lars to < 2.5 % of the birds ’ body mass and reducing the antenna length. This implies a trade-off between effects on birds and performance of the transmit-ters in terms of battery mass (longevity) and antenna length (range).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.004 | 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".