Moult intensity and chronology of Tundra Swans during spring and fall migration at Long Point, Lake Erie, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Moult intensity and chronology in staging Eastern-Population (EP) Tundra Swans (Cygnus columbianus columbianus) were studied during spring in 1999 and 2000 (n = 35) and during fall in 1999, 2000, and 2001 (n = 47) at Long Point, Lake Erie, Ontario. To test for age, sex, and seasonal differences in moult intensity, 20 feather regions were scored according to the proportion of growing feathers. Adult, subadult, and juvenile Tundra Swans moulted contour feathers at low intensities during spring and fall. Males and females of all three age classes had similar patterns and intensities of moult during spring and fall. Shared costs of incubation and brood rearing, perennial monogamy, and lack of a breeding plumage could be some of the pressures selecting for intersexual similarities in feather replacement during migration. Adult, subadult, and juvenile Tundra Swans moulted more intensively during fall than spring. Larger lipid reserves and seasonal dietary differences may allow fall-staging Tundra Swans to moult more intensively than spring-staging birds at Long Point. Overlap of nutritionally costly events (moult and migration) may be necessary as Tundra Swans spend half of their annual cycle on spring and fall staging areas. However, reduced daily nutritional costs associated with moulting at low intensities and migrating slowly apparently permits the overlap of these two life-cycle events.
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".