Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada geese (Branta canadensis) are a staple of most parks, neighborhoods, and even shopping centers (Conover 1998) – wherever there is a body of water with subsequent aquatic vegetation, you will most likely find Canada geese. This is especially true during their annual molting period from mid-June to late July, in which they shed and regrow their flight feathers. It is generally accepted that geese with broods prefer to molt and rear the brood near to or at their own birthplaces- this concept is known as philopatry. Over the summer of 2020, I observed the Canada goose flock of Cookeville, Tennessee to discern whether this philopatric trend can be observed within the flock. Geese with broods and those without were examined and analyzed separately to accommodate for the heightened philopatry that is commonly seen in geese that are rearing broods. Results showed that local males, those first captured in the Cookeville flock as hatch years, did indeed travel farther on average than local females. It was also found that individuals were philopatric to their natal sight whether or not they had had a brood that season. Such results raise questions regarding the following, or lack thereof, of seen trends within the study: (1) If the trends followed are seen in the Cookeville flock, are they followed by other resident flocks? and (2) Are the common trends that are not being followed due to the flock being a resident flock, or is it due to other variables?
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".