Demographic analyses of a Trumpteter Swan Cygnus cygnus buccinator population in Western USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Trumpeter Swan surveys have been conducted in the northern Rocky Mountain region o f the U.S.A. since 1929.Survey timing and methods have varied.Two aerial censuses, in September and February, are currently used to monitor population size, recruitment and distribution o f the Rocky Mountain Population, its two subpopulations, and several component flocks.The Tristate Subpopulation increasedfrom 69 trumpeter swans in 1932 to 627 in 1954.It then began to fluctuate widely around a mean o f536swans.Despite the fluctuations, the slope o f the Tristate Subpopulation from 1950 to 1989 is not different than zero.The subpopulation currently numbers 565.Annual fluctuations are due primarily to variations in recruitment rates.Although numbers increased and fluctuated, flock distribution remains relatively stable.In September, Montana contains 65.6%, Idaho 11.4% and Wyoming 23.0% o f the Tristate Subpopu lotion.The Interior Canada Subpopulation has increased from approximately 200 in 1974 to about 1150 in 1989.Most o f these migratory swans winter in Idaho.The increase in numbers has resulted in shifts in wintering distribution.Montana hosts more swans and a declining percentage o f the total Rocky Mountain Population (35.6% ).Idaho winters more swans and an increasing percentage o f the total (49.8% ).Wyoming numbers have increased, but it continues to winter about the same percentage (12.5%)ofthe winter population.Shifts are due to overcrowding anchorforage depletion on traditional wintering sites, poor weather conditions, low water levels, varying ice conditions, and differential recruitment by flocks using specific traditional sites.The two seasonal censuses allow close monitoring o f demo graphic patterns, evaluation o f management procedures, and formulation o f research needs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".