Habitat use by two tropical species of waterfowl in central Malaysia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two tropical species of waterfowl, the Lesser Whistling-duck (LWD) Dendrocygna javanica and Cotton Pygmy-goose (CPG) Nettapus coromandelianus, are patchily distributed across Malaysia and little is known about their habitat requirements. We studied patterns of habitat use for LWD and CPG at the Paya Indah Wetlands Reserve, Malaysia (c. 3,050 ha), by counting the birds from observation points and using a zero-altered negative binomial model to describe their abundance and distribution at the site. Habitat use by LWD and CPG was highly correlated; for instance both species frequented shallow, nutrient-rich lakes in the study area. Fine-scale measures of vegetation characteristics influenced local distribution, whereas a combination of anthropogenic activities and other habitat features best predicted abundance. Overall, LWD selected the more stable but densely-vegetated marshy shoreline while CPG used vegetated areas near the central deeper portions of the lake. Our habitat-selection models give insight into the ecology of LWD and CPG in Malaysia and can provide a tool for identifying areas for possible habitat restoration and conservation in the region.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".