MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128636487 · doi:10.26108/yd8s-4a86

Multicentury perspective assessing the sustainability of the historical harvest of seaducks

2019· article· en· W7128636487 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kathryn E. Hargan, H. Grant Gilchrist, Nikolas M. T. Clyde, Samuel A. Iverson, Mark R. Forbes, Linda E. Kimpe, Mark L. Mallory, Neal Michelutti, Jules M. Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueAcadiaU-DEV · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeabirdArcticSubarctic climatePopulationSustainabilityPopulation growthRelocationCensusSubsistence agriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Where available, census data on seabirds often do not extend beyond a few years or decades, challenging our ability to identify drivers of population change and to develop conservation policies. Here, we reconstruct long-term population dynamics of northern common eiders (Somateria mollissima borealis). We analyzed sterols together with stable nitrogen isotopes in dated pond sediment cores to show that eiders underwent broadscale population declines over the 20th century at Canadian subarctic breeding sites. Likely, a rapidly growing Greenland population, combined with relocation of Inuit to larger Arctic communities and associated increases in the availability of firearms and motors during the early to mid-20th century, generated more efficient hunting practices, which in turn reduced the number of adult eiders breeding at Canadian nesting islands. Our paleolimnological approach highlights that current and local monitoring windows for many sensitive seabird species may be inadequate for making key conservation decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcadiaU-DEVSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207