Characteristics of ponds used by trumpeter swans in a spring migration stopover area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated pond habitat use by trumpeter swans (Cygnus buccinator) at spring migration stopover areas in southern Alberta in 1999 and 2000. Spring migration stopover areas may be critical to gaining energy stores required for successful breeding, but no studies of trumpeter swan migration habitat have previously been published. We conducted counts of trumpeter swans on 13 ponds located west of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, and divided the ponds into three groups based on their use by trumpeter swans (consistent high use, variable use, and consistent low/no use). We determined properties of all ponds, including pond area <1 m deep, distance from roads, days ice-covered while trumpeter swans were present, pH, conductivity, total phosphorus, percent macrophyte cover, and rhizome plus tuber dry mass per square metre. We used forward-stepping discriminant function analysis to determine which pond properties were most consistent with trumpeter swan use. Consistent high-use ponds had the greatest rhizome plus tuber dry mass per square metre and high conductivity. Ice cover also influenced pond use. Potamogeton pectinatus was the dominant macrophyte in all consistently used ponds. Our results are important for identifying ponds favoured by trumpeter swans and to ensure that adequate habitat is available during spring migration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".