MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2939384816

AN UPDATE ON MORTALITY OF FLEDGED WHOOPING CRANES IN THE ARANSAS / WOOD BUFFALO POPULATION

2016· article· en· W2939384816 on OpenAlex
Thomas V. Stehn, Carey L. Haralson-Strobel

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationGeographyBiologyEcologyFisheryDemography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From winter 1950 through spring 2011, 6,364 whooping cranes (Grus americana) overwintered at Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, or rarely, elsewhere. Documented winter losses amounted to 105 birds dead or disappeared. About 20% of total losses occurred in the wintering area, where birds spend 5 to 6 months of the year including a few birds that over-summer. Losses of white-plumaged whooping cranes on the summering area in Canada appear to be low with only 3 instances documented. The most significant losses seem to occur in migration and may comprise over 80% of the annual mortality. Migration involves only 17-20% of the annual cycle but is a period when losses are high because birds are exposed to new hazards as they travel through mostly unfamiliar environments. This paper updates a similar account by Lewis et al. (1992) by adding mortality records of the Aransas/Wood Buffalo population (AWBP) from 1987 through 2010 with information on 50 recovered carcasses.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.213 · 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