Status, Trends and Attendance Patterns of the Northern Fulmar
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT. Nunavut supports ten breeding colonies of northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), most of which have rarely been visited on the ground by biologists. During 2000–04, we surveyed six colonies previously thought to support more than 80 % of the Canadian Arctic population, which was believed to number about 300 000 breeding pairs. Our counts suggested that the breeding populations of some colonies, especially those at the largest colonies, Cape Searle and Prince Leopold Island, were substantially smaller than previously estimated. Our estimate for the total population of Nunavut was approximately 200 000 occupied sites. However, counts made at fixed monitoring plots at Prince Leopold Island and total colony estimates at Cape Vera, Devon Island, suggested no change in numbers at those colonies since the 1970s. Numbers present at the colony peaked in late June–early July and fell sharply after the end of July. Cyclical attendance, identified in an earlier study, was irregular in period length and was not seen in all years. We concluded that counts of Apparently Occupied Sites (AOS) conducted daily for 10–15 days are the best monitoring protocol for northern fulmars at these Arctic colonies. The great day-to-day variability in counts may have contributed to the large differences between past and recent population estimates. Key words: northern fulmar, Fulmarus glacialis, Arctic, population status, population trend, colony attendance RÉSUMÉ. Le Nunavut permet la subsistance de dix colonies de nidification de fulmars boréaux (Fulmarus glacialis), et rares sont les colonies qui ont été visitées par des biologistes au sol. De 2000 à 2004, nous avons recensé six colonies qui, croyait-on, soutenaient plus de 80 % de la population arctique canadienne, estimée à environ 300 000 couples reproducteurs. Nos
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".