MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080923796

BREEDING TRUMPETER SWANS IN NORTHEAST- ERN NORTH DAKOTA

2017· article· en· W3080923796 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Fisher, Matthew D. Sprenger, Chris R. Roed, David O. Lambeth

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Rural Development Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyFisheryBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The trumpeter swan (Cygnus buccinator) is North America’s largest waterfowl species and breeds in wetland habitats across the northern United States, Alaska and Canada. Summer observations by ornithologists, including those of John James Audubon in 1843, indicated a substantial number of trumpeter swans were breeding in North Dakota prior to European settlement. However, the species was extirpated by the late 1800s and there were no subsequent breeding records for over a century (Stewart 1975). Since 2007, 5 recent nesting records indicate that trumpeter swan has returned as a regular breeding species in North Dakota. A continental range-wide breeding trumpeter swan survey conducted every 5 years since 1968 has shown that the population across North America has increased at an annual growth rate of 6.2%, from an estimated 3,722 birds in 1968 to 46,225 in 2010 (Groves 2012). From 2005 to 2015, the population of swans in the Central, Mississippi and Atlantic flyways has increased from 4,647 to 27,053 in 2015 (Groves 2012). The High Plains sub-unit of the Interior population (which includes North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming, Manitoba and Saskatchewan) increased from 471 birds in 2005 to 573 birds in 2010 (Groves 2012). However, breeding trumpeter swans were not recorded in North Dakota.

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 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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicAgriculture and Rural Development ResearchFrench-language works237,207