PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF A FIVE YEAR BANDING STUDY IN EASTERN CANADA: SUPPORT FOR EXPANDING CONSERVATION EFFORTS TO NON-BREEDING SITES?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract – An Eastern Canada Piping Plover research program was conducted from 1998-2003, with additional effort expended on recapture in 2004. During this time, 888 Piping Plovers were banded, including 561 young and 327 adults. Individuals were banded with province-specific color bands, many bearing alpha codes to permit visual identification. Of the total banded, 175 were recaptured in subsequent years, including 73 young and 102 adults. Preliminary analysis has been initiated exploring survival, dispersal, metapopulation dynamics, wintering ground and migratory tendencies. There appears to be two discrete groups of Piping Plovers in Eastern Canada – one located in southern Nova Scotia, another located in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence. There is an indication of limited exchange with the US Atlantic population and the Gulf of St. Lawrence group however the Nova Scotia group appears to be isolated from other populations. Survival rates were calculated for both groups independently. Adult survival rates were approximately 73 % for both the southern Gulf of St Lawrence and southern Nova Scotia and are comparable to rates calculated for the US Atlantic population. However, juvenile survival rates were substantially lower with estimates of 24 % for the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence and 33 % for southern Nova Scotia. The population model also identifies
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".