Coloured tail-coverts in Anser × Branta goose hybrids despite all-white coverts in both parent species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
I tested the hypothesis that barred or dusky tail-coverts are common in Anser × Branta goose hybrids despite all-white coverts in both parent species. Thirty-two photographically documented Anser × Branta goose hybrids in the author’s archive were assessed. Undertail-coverts were barred or more diffusely dusky in 23 out of the 30 individuals which could be fully evaluated. As to uppertail- coverts, there was some degree of barring or diffuse duskiness in 26 out of the 32 individuals. All-white upper- and undertail-coverts were seen in 1 out of 18 Greylag Goose × Greater Canada Goose hybrids and in 4 out of 5 Snow Goose hybrids; in one Snow Goose × Barnacle Goose hybrid and the only Greylag Goose × Lesser Canada Goose hybrid, barring was restricted to very few uppertail-coverts. In a domestic Swan Goose × Barnacle Goose, under-tail but not upper-tail coverts were coloured. The hypothesis that barred or dusky tail-coverts are common in Anser × Branta goose hybrids despite all-white coverts in both parent species is thus confirmed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".