GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF PREFLEDGING CANADA GEESE AND LESSER SNOW GEESE: ECOLOGICAL ADAPTATION OR PHYSIOLOGICAL CONSTRAINT?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neonate, gosling, and adult Canada Geese (Branta canadensis interior) and Lesser Snow Geese (Chen caerulescens caerulescens) were collected to evaluate if growth rates and developmental patterns differed interspecifically and to determine if such differences were better explained by physiology of the growth process or by ecological conditions historically experienced by those two species. Patterns of growth and development of Canada and Lesser Snow goose goslings were similar to those reported for other Arctic geese, but differences in relative growth rates and developmental patterns of external structures, digestive organs, and skeletal muscles were observed between these two species. As compared to Canada Geese, body parts associated with locomotion and acquisition or processing of food generally increased at relatively faster rates and were more developed relative to adult size in Lesser Snow Geese. Relative rates of increase for carcass protein and body mass in these two species did not support a physiological constraint on growth. Rates and patterns of growth and development were better explained as adaptations to ecological factors, such as growing season and nesting or brood rearing conditions, historically experienced by these two 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".