MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7153693733

Observations on the Breeding Biology of Wilson's Phalarope (steganopus Tricolor) in Central Alberta

2024· article· W7153693733 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. Otto H

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEctothermSelection (genetic algorithm)PopulationBioregion
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SINCE the publication of Bent's "Life histories of North American shore birds" (1927), only minor references to Wilson's Phalarope have appeared in the periodical literature.Books on the avifaunas of certain states published since then have generally added only distributional information, though Roberts (1932) and Gabrielson and Jewett (1940) give glimpses of its life history and Randali's contribution (1961) on this bird does somewhat more than this.The study reported here was carried out in the Edmonton district of Alberta, Canada, in the breeding seasons of 1962 to 1964, inclusive, but includes some observations made in the spring of 1963 near Missoula, April ] H6a•, Breeding Biology o] Wilson's Phalarope 221 1967 / wing and phalaropes securing the aquatic larval forms of many of the same prey species.(Lovenskiold [1964: 208] writing of the Red Phalarope in Spitzbergen states that when breeding it often seeks the protection of Arctic Terns ISterna paradisaea], nesting in the middle of or near their breeding colonies, though he also cites circumstantial evidence that terns in one case punctured phalarope eggs.Black Tern colonies are much looser than those of the Arctic Tern so that protection, while it may well be a factor in the Common Tern-Wilson's Phalarope association noted, is probably only a minor factor in the Black Tern-phalarope association.The fact is that Black Terns nest on almost every sizeable slough in the Edmonton district, including those which phalaropes also use.To my mind this argues for common ecological factors such as food and type of cover.)The breeding habitats are shallow sloughs with a marginal vegetation of grasses and short sedges or portions of lake shore with this type of vegetation.Waters in which a belt of tall cattails or sedges leaves no open grassy margins are not used as breeding areas though the birds may appear on them during the spring migration.(Some features of the breeding colony shown later in Figure 4 may appear to contradict this, but in the "collective feeding" areas shown on this figure the water was very shallow and a number of small weed grown islets were present.)In dry years the smaller, shallow sloughs may dry out in the spring and become useless for phalaropes.Thus, in the dry summer of 1964, many breeding sites used in previous years held no phalaropes.There was, however, no noticeable reduction in the breeding population of the district, because th'ere was more breeding on the shores of larger and deeper sloughs and lakes than previously.The smaller breeding sloughs are often very close to farms and they may be near highways with heavy traffic.In the farming country the nests sites are in hay meadows or pasture, 50 to 100 yards from the water's edge, or occasionally on islets in lakes, much nearer to open water, among rough grass.The birds breed in small colonies of from two to eight pairs.OBSERVATIONS DUl•NG THE BREEDING SEASON Arrival in spring.--Randall(1961: 205), whose experience relates mainly to Alberta, gives the end of April as the time of arrival for western Canada.For the Edmonton district, however, early to mid-May is the period in which most first sightings fall.This is evident from the following first records: (from the diaries of the late W. Rowan)

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.147 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida)→Same topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies→French-language works237,207→