MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553730773

An aerial survey of nesting Greater White-fronted and Canada Geese in west Greenland

2000· article· en· W1553730773 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard A. Malecki, Anthony David Fox, Bruce D. J. Batt

Bibliographic record

VenueWildfowl (Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust) · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransectBrantaGeographyBayWhite (mutation)Aerial surveyEcologyPhysical geographyGooseBiologyArchaeologyCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An aerial survey conducted in early June 1999 in west Greenland, between 62o and 72oN latitude, provided breeding pair estimates of 4,314 (+-785 SE) Greater White-fronted Geese (Anser albifrons flavirostris) and 2,631 (+-897 SE) Canada Geese (Branta canadensis). Only one pair of Canada Geese and no White-fronted Geese were observed on transects south of 66o 45' N. Mean densities of White-fronted (0.28 pairs/km2) and Canada Geese (0.25 pairs/km2), were highest in the Kangerlussuaq region (66o 55'-67o 30' N). North of this region, primarily in the area from 67o 30' N to the southern portion of Disko Bay (68o 40' N), densities declined to 0.11 pairs/km2 for White-fronted Geese and 0.03 pairs/km2 for Canada Geese. Few breeding pairs (<6, both species combined) were seen on transects north of the south Disko Bay region. However, increased snow cover and inclement weather prevented a full assessment of this more northerly region. At a local scale, the two species were less likely to occur together than expected by chance suggesting some spatial segregation. The importance of the Kangerlussuaq region to breeding Greater White-fronted Geese and the potential for competition with increasing numbers of recently established Canada Geese is discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.277
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations10
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildfowl (Wildfowl & Wetlands Trust)Same topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207