MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7153696545

Homing of Subadult Oldsquaws

2024· article· W7153696545 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. M. Alison

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumageFlockHoming (biology)Sexual maturitySexual difference
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Homing of subadult Oldsquaws.--Througha continuing Oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis) banding and marking program that I have conducted near Churchill, Manitoba (Alison 1972, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Toronto, Univ. of Toronto) it has been possible to identify in flocks of subadult Oldsquaws on the breeding grounds individuals that were reared in the same vicinity the previous year.Such identification included individuals captured as flightless young and marked with nasal saddles (Alison 1975a, Ornithol.Monogr.No. 18) during July and August of 1974, or unmarked birds banded in previous years and recaptured in 1974 and 1975 within the study ponds.Male and female subadults are always distinguishable in the field by plumage (Alison 1975b, Birdbanding 46: 248-250).From 1968 through 1975 a few subadult males appeared briefly on the study area in only 2 years; otherwise all subadults present were females.Subadults were present in all years, the maximum number being 29 (all females) in 1975.Although a few arrived each year in late May together with most of the paired adults, the majority typically appeared in mid-June.Some were present as late as 3 September.None was ever observed paired.The proportion of immature females that returned to the study ponds as subadults is unknown, but of 29 subadult females present in 1975, 4 were reared within 1 km of the recapture sites.The ability to home among subadults of duck species that require 2 or more years to reach sexual maturity has not been published previously.Nonetheless it is well-known that some adult Canada Geese (Branta canadensis), Snow Geese (Chen caerulescens), (Atlantic) Brant (Branta bernicla), and others return to their natal area.Homing by adult anatids has been reported in the Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) (Erskine 1961, Auk 78: 389-396), Oldsquaws (Alison 1975a), Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis), Canvasback (Aythya valisineria), and Redhead (Aythya americana) (D.Trauger, pers.comm.), and others as well as among the nondiving species.Perhaps the most remarkable record involved two subadult females, banded as flightless immatures (#s 547-43136 and 547-43145) at the same spot (in the same net) in August 1974 and recaptured together on 25 June 1975 about 4 km from the banding site.These marked birds, which may have been from the same brood and were certainly from the same communal brood, arrived together on the study ponds 23 June 1975 and, when seen later, were always near each other.Another marked subadult female (number 547•3141), captured in 1974 from the same communal brood, was frequently seen in association with these individuals in 1975 and was recaptured 26 June 1975 on the same pond with them.Although we do not know that these individuals migrated and passed the winter of 1974-75 together, it seems doubtful that, had they not done so, they would have reached Churchill together and remained together on the same pond throughout June and July.These observations suggest not only a fidelity to natal territory but also a mutual fidelity among specific individuals in the subadult population.As the pair-bond is especially strong among adult Oldsquaws (Alison 1975a) it is not inconsistent that similar associations occur among subadults, although the purpose of such behavior is unknown.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida)→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→