Evaluating indices of lipid and protein content in lesser snow and Ross's geese during spring migration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Assessing nutrient stores in avian species is important for understanding the extent to which body condition influences success or failure in life‐history events. We evaluated predictive models using morphometric characteristics to estimate total body lipids (TBL) and total body protein (TBP), based on traditional proximate analyses, in spring migrating lesser snow geese ( Anser caerulescens caerulescens ) and Ross's geese ( A. rossii ). We also compared performance of our lipid model with a previously derived predictive equation for TBL developed for nesting lesser snow geese. We used external and internal measurements on 612 lesser snow and 125 Ross's geese collected during spring migration in 2015 and 2016 within the Central and Mississippi flyways to derive and evaluate predictive models. Using a validation data set, our best performing lipid model for snow geese better predicted TBL (root mean square error [RMSE] of 23.56) compared with a model derived from nesting individuals (RMSE = 48.60), suggesting the importance of season‐specific models for accurate lipid estimation. Models that included body mass and abdominal fat deposit best predicted TBL determined by proximate analysis in both species (lesser snow goose, R 2 = 0.87, RMSE = 23.56: Ross's geese, R 2 = 0.89, RMSE = 13.75). Models incorporating a combination of external structural measurements in addition to internal muscle and body mass best predicted protein values ( R 2 = 0.85, RMSE = 19.39 and R 2 = 0.85, RMSE = 7.65, lesser snow and Ross's geese, respectively), but protein models including only body mass and body size were also competitive and provided extended utility to our equations for field applications. Therefore, our models indicated the importance of specimen dissection and measurement of the abdominal fat pad to provide the most accurate lipid estimates and provide alternative dissection‐free methods for estimating protein. Published 2018. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.
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) | 0.000 | 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".