Waterfowl in Cuba: current status and distribution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cuba and its satellite islands represent the largest landmass in the Caribbean archipelago and a major repository of the region’s biodiversity. Approximately 13.4% of the Cuban territory is covered by wetlands, encompassing approximately 1.48 million ha which includes mangroves, flooded savannas, peatlands, freshwater swamp forests and various types of managed wetlands. Here, we synthesise information on the distribution and abundance of waterfowl on the main island of Cuba, excluding the numerous surrounding cays and the Isla de la Juventud (Isle of Youth), and report on band recoveries from wintering waterfowl harvested in Cuba by species and location. Twenty-nine species of waterfowl occur in Cuba, 24 of which are North American migrants. Of the five resident Anatid species, three are of conservation concern: the West Indian Whistling-duck Dendrocygna arborea (globally vulnerable), White-cheeked Pintail Anas bahamensis (regional concern) and Masked Duck Nomonyx dominicus (regional concern). The most abundant species of waterfowl wintering in Cuba include Blue-winged Teal A. discors, Northern Pintail A. acuta, and Northern Shoveler A. clypeata. Waterfowl banded in Canada and the United States and recovered in Cuba included predominantly Blue-winged Teal, American Wigeon and Northern Pintail. Banding sites of recovered birds suggest that most of the waterfowl moving through and wintering in Cuba are from the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways. Threats to wetlands and waterfowl in Cuba include: 1) egg poaching of resident species, 2) illegal hunting of migratory and protected resident species, 3) mangrove deforestation, 4) reservoirs for irrigation, 5) periods of pronounced droughts, and 6) hurricanes. Wetland and waterfowl conservation efforts continue across Cuba’s extensive system of protected areas. Expanding
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".