Piecing together the global population puzzle of wandering albatrosses: genetic analysis of the Amsterdam albatross <i>Diomedea amsterdamensis</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wandering albatrosses have been subjected to numerous taxonomic revisions due to discoveries of new species, analyses of morphological data and, more recently, the inclusion of genetic data. The small population of albatrosses (170 individuals including 26 pairs breeding annually) on Amsterdam Island in the Indian Ocean, Diomedea amsterdamensis , has been given species status based on plumage and morphometrics, but genetic data published to date provide weak support and its specific status remains controversial for some authors. We used mitochondrial control region sequence data to elucidate the relationship of the Amsterdam albatross within the wandering albatross complex ( Diomedea amsterdamensis, D. antipodensis, D. dabbenena and D. exulans ). Three novel haplotypes were present in 35 individuals from Amsterdam Island, and were highly divergent (3.6–7.3%) from haplotypes found in the other three members of the wandering albatross complex. Low levels of genetic variation in Amsterdam albatross likely resulted, at least in part, from a population bottleneck. Geographic isolation in the wandering albatross complex is maintained by high natal philopatry. As Amsterdam Island is the only breeding ground for this critically endangered species, we strongly urge conservation efforts in the area, especially in relation to long line fisheries and other threats such as disease and introduced predators, and it be listed as a distinct species.
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) | 0.000 | 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".