Dominance relations and agonistic behaviour of Tundra Swans (<i>Cygnus columbianus</i> <i>columbianus</i>) during fall and spring migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social interactions and agonistic activities of Tundra Swans (Cygnus columbianus columbianus) were documented at Long Point, Ontario, to determine (i) dominance relations among social groups and (ii) the frequency and intensity of agonistic acts by swans. Families were involved in one-third as many interactions as were nonfamily groups. Nonfamily groups initiated interactions with other nonfamily groups more often than they did with family groups, but families initiated the same relative numbers of interactions with family and nonfamily groups. Further, families won nearly all conflicts with nonfamily groups, which suggests that they generally dominated nonfamily groups. Tundra Swans also showed a dominance hierarchy based largely on family or group size. To reduce conflict and energy expenditure, swans may use a simple "decision rule" during interactions: larger groups and initiators win. Two results supported this: (1) swans initiated interactions more often with smaller groups and (2) groups that initiated won interactions more often than did recipients. Swans used low-intensity agonistic acts more frequently than higher intensity ones when engaging members of other social groups, but intensity of aggression was independent of group status. Dominance based on the use of simple cues may be especially beneficial in unstable social environments at major staging areas.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".