ARE ABDOMINAL PROFILES USEFUL TO ASSESS BODY CONDITION OF SPRING STAGING GREATER SNOW GEESE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abdominal profile indices were developed to evaluate body condition in birds without capturing or handling them. We assessed the reliability of abdominal profile indices in predicting condition of spring staging Greater Snow Geese (Chen caerulescens atlantica). We first calibrated profile scores assigned to females against two direct measures of nutrient stores, abdominal fat and body mass corrected for body size. Abdominal profile indices were linearly and significantly related to both abdominal fat and body mass but the variance was high for individuals assigned to the same profile score (R2 = 0.08 and R2 = 0.09, respectively, n = 230). On average, an increase of one profile score corresponded to an increase of 100 g in body mass. Abdominal profiles were better predictors of average abdominal fat and body mass of birds assigned to the same profile category. To assess the usefulness of abdominal profiles in the field, we also examined if the technique could detect the negative effect of a spring hunt on nutrient storage by staging geese, an effect previously detected with internal measures of nutrient reserves. We monitored seasonal changes in abdominal profile indices of staging geese in years without (1997 and 1998) and with the spring hunt (1999 and 2000). In two out of three regions, abdominal profiles revealed that condition increased at a higher rate in nonhunting than in hunting years. The lack of a negative effect of hunting in the other region was likely due to variability among observers in abdominal profile scoring. We conclude that abdominal profile indices can be useful to assess body condition of spring staging Greater Snow Geese although the technique has serious limitations at the individual level, especially without proper training of observers. ¿Son los Perfiles Abdominales Útiles para Determinar la Condición Corporal de Chen caerulescens atlantica durante Escalas Migratorias de Primavera? Resumen. Los índices de perfil abdominal fueron desarrollados para evaluar la condición corporal de las aves sin tener que capturarlas o manipularlas. En este estudio examinamos la confiabilidad de dichos índices para predecir la condición corporal de gansos Chen caerulescens atlantica durante la época de escalas migratorias de primavera. Inicialmente, calibramos los puntajes de los perfiles asignados a un grupo de hembras con respecto a dos medidas directas de reservas nutritivas, la grasa abdominal y la masa corregida por el tamaño corporal. Los índices de perfil abdominal estuvieron lineal y significativamente relacionados con la grasa abdominal y la masa corporal (R2 = 0.08 y R2 = 0.09, respectivamente, n = 230), pero la varianza entre individuos asignados al mismo puntaje del perfil fue alta. En promedio, un incremento de un punto en el perfil correspondió a un incremento de 100 g en la masa corporal. Los perfiles abdominales predijeron de mejor manera los promedios de grasa abdominal y masa corporal de aves asignadas a la misma categoría del perfil. Para evaluar la utilidad de los perfiles abdominales en el campo, también examinamos si la técnica podía detectar el efecto negativo de la cacería de primavera sobre el almacenamiento de nutrientes en gansos que estaban haciendo escalas migratorias, un efecto previamente detectado por medio de medidas internas de las reservas nutritivas. Monitoreamos los cambios estacionales en los índices de perfil abdominal de gansos en años que estuvieron (1997 y 1998) y no estuvieron (1999 y 2000) expuestos a cacería en la primavera. En dos de las tres regiones, los perfiles abdominales indicaron que la condición corporal se incrementó a una tasa mayor en los años sin cacería. La ausencia de un efecto negativo de la cacería en la otra región probablemente fue debida a la variabilidad entre distintos observadores al establecer los valores del perfil abdominal. Concluimos que los índices de perfil abdominal pueden ser útiles para evaluar la condición corporal de estos gansos durante la época de escalas migratorias, pero la técnica tiene limitaciones serias a nivel individual, especialmente cuando los observadores no han sido entrenados adecuadamente.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".