MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1530734498 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v119i4.177

Breeding and Non-Breeding Range of Canada, <em>Branta canadensis</em>, and Cackling Geese, <em>Branta hutchinsii</em>, in the Eastern Canadian Arctic

2005· article· en· W1530734498 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Mark L. Mallory, Alain J. Fontaine, Hugh Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersNunavut Wildlife Management Board
KeywordsBrantaGeographyFlockRange (aeronautics)ArcticPopulationWaterfowlFisheryBreedAnatidaeEcologyGooseBiologyHabitatDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The accepted breeding distribution of Canada Geese from the Atlantic Population (Branta canadensis interior) in the eastern Canadian Arctic is currently confined to northern Québec and the south coast of Baffin Island. Here we provide evidence based on observations from scientific studies, Inuit hunters, and territorial Wildlife Officers that B. c. interior now breeds in growing numbers 500 km farther north on northeastern Baffin Island than previously reported. Cackling Geese (B. hutchinsii), which breed more widely across eastern Arctic Canada, to about 72°N, may also be increasing there. Moreover, individuals of both species are seen occasionally as far north as Ellesmere Island in small flocks and within migrating or moulting flocks of Snow Geese (Chen caerulescens) or Brant (B. bernicla hrota), though none of these far northern stragglers are known to have bred. Whether these observations reflect a recent range expansion or improved distributional knowledge from more intensive recent survey efforts remains 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)0.001
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 score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.246 · 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
Published2005
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist→Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→