Spring Migration of Northern Pintails from Texas and New Mexico, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used satellite transmitters (platform transmitting terminals or PTTs) during 2002 and 2003 to document spring migration timing, routes, stopover sites, and nesting sites of adult female Northern Pintails (Anas acuta) from major wintering areas of the Gulf Coast (N = 20) and Playa Lakes Regions (PLR, N = 20) in Texas, and the Middle Rio Grande Valley, New Mexico (MRGV, N = 15). Some Pintails tagged in the MRGV continued movements into Mexico. Poor winter survival or PTT failure reduced sample size to 15 for PLR Pintails, 5 for Gulf Coast Pintails, and 11 for MRGV Pintails. Apparent winter survival was 66% lower for Texas Gulf Coast PTT-tagged Pintails than for those from the PLR and MRGV. Pintails from each area used different routes to their respective breeding grounds. PTT-tagged Pintails from the MRGV followed the Rio Grande Valley north to southern Colorado, before traveling on to the Dakotas and Canada or traveled northeast and joined the migration of PLR Pintails in Texas or Kansas. The latter made initial stops in Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, or the Dakotas. Gulf Coast Pintails traveled through north-central Oklahoma or central Kansas. Pintails that had stopped first in Kansas or Nebraska tended to settle to nest in the United States. Wetland availability in the Prairie Pothole Region of the Northern Great Plains influenced nesting destinations of PTT-tagged Pintails, but individuals settled across a wide swath of northern North America. We did not detect any consistently-used spring staging areas. Therefore, negative impacts to any of the marked populations, or their wetland habitats, may have continental implications.
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".