MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2910311730

Limitations On Canada Goose Production at Fish springs National Wildlife Refuge, Utah

2017· dataset· en· W2910311730 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNest (protein structural motif)GooseHatchlingWildlife refugeBroodPredationPopulationWildlifeBiologyFisherySalinityEcologyMarshWetlandHatchingDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

we studied the western canada goose b c moffitti population at fish springs national wildlife refuge in western utah from march to july in 1996 and 1997 to determine the causes of low gosling production our initial interest was in whether water salinity was involved we researched the effects of saline drinking water by conducting an experiment on captive wild strain goslings that were collected as eggs from cutler marsh in cache county utah and by observing free ranging broods in the brood rearing impoundments mortality occurred in captive goslings at 18 us cm effects on growth were evident at 12 us cm we identified 12 hydrologically distinct areas within the 9 impoundments at the refuge from 15 april to 15 july conductivity measurements ranged from 3 1 to 25 4 us cm within these areas our results suggest that at the levels that goslings experienced during the critical hatchling period during 1996 1997 salinity was not a serious problem during exceptionally dry years if salinity levels rise during early spring then its effects might be more directly related to gosling mortality at the levels we measured during this study mortality in free ranging goslings was independent of specific conductivity rather annual goose production appeared to be limited by predation and human disturbance this conclusion is supported by 2 lines of evidence a low ground nest success and b low gosling survival ground nests had lower nest success 56 9 of 16 nests in both years than artificial nesting platforms 90 9 of 10 nests gosling survival to fledging was 25 and 52 in 1996 and 1997 respectively well below survivorships levels reported in the literature our observations suggest that coyotes are abundant on the refuge and we observed them hunting for geese human disturbance appears to predispose goslings to mortality because goslings often became separated from their parents after disturbance low productivity also is related to the low number of breeding pairs on the refuge during the summers 1996 and 1997 number of nesting pairs of geese averaged 26 and 39 respectively

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→