Return Rates of Male and Female Monogamous Shorebirds to Their Breeding Grounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Klima, J. & Johnson, O.W. 2005.Return rates of male and female monogamous shorebirds to their breeding grounds.Wader Study Group Bull.106: 42-46.Keywords: shorebirds, waders, breeding grounds, site-fidelity, male and female return rates.This paper summarizes available information on breeding area tenacity of males and females in 29 species of migratory shorebirds.Of these, return rates were male-biased in 25 species.However, the difference between the sexes was often relatively small, and sometimes reversed from one season to another or from one study area to another.In the four species where site tenacity was not male-biased (all single investigations), two taxa showed equal return rates and two were slightly female-biased.Among all species considered, certain of the longest-distance migrants (especially Pluvialis squatarola, P. dominica, P. fulva, Tringa flavipes, Heteroscelus incanus, Calidris tenuirostris and C. canutus) showed the greatest gender-related variation with breeding ground fidelity strongly favouring males.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.005 | 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".