MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2007457635

Former occurrences of geese (Genera Anser and Branta) in ancient West Greenland: morphological and biometric approaches

2002· article· en· W2007457635 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Anne Birgitte Gotfredsen

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Zoologica Cracoviensia · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrantaGooseZoologySubspeciesGeographyBiologyEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Goose remains from 16 prehistoric localities ranging from the beginning of the Saqqaq period, c. 2400 B.C., to Colonial times, c. 1850 A.D. were examined in order to elucidate the prehistoric distribution of goose populations in Central West Greenland. The site of Nipisat I, Sisimiut/Holsteinsborg District, dated to c. 2000-500 B.C., provided nearly 1800 goose remains which were compared to extant Greenland goose species of the genera Branta and Anser. The Nipsat I geese were significantly smaller than the White- fronted Geese Anser albifrons flavirostris and could be assigned to the genus Branta based on the unpneumatised furcula. The presence of juvenile goose bones and 63 percent of the femora containing medullary bone demonstrated that the Nipisat I geese bred or at least staged in close proximity to the coast. The following scenario is suggested: a Branta species, presumably a smaller subspecies of Canada Goose Branta canadensis, may have co-existed with White-fronted Geese, documented in the interior of the Nuuk/Godthab District since at least c. 1000-1400 A.D. and the interior of the Sisimiut/Holsteinsborg District since at least c. 1200-1300 A.D. The Brent Goose Branta bernicla hrota, was es- tablished as a member of the Greenland avifauna 4000-4500 years ago and possibly earlier.

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 score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.222
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

Citations14
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Zoologica Cracoviensia→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→