Evidence of longitudinal differences in spring migration strategies of an Arctic‐nesting goose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract During spring, migratory birds are required to optimally balance energetic costs of migration across heterogeneous landscapes and weather conditions to survive and reproduce successfully. Therefore, an individual's migratory performance may influence reproductive outcomes. Given large‐scale changes in land use, climate, and potential carry‐over effects, understanding how individuals migrate in relation to breeding outcomes is critical to predicting how future scenarios may affect populations. We used GPS tracking devices on 56 Greater White‐fronted Geese ( Anser albifrons ) during four spring migrations to examine whether migration characteristics influenced breeding propensity and breeding outcome. We found a strong longitudinal difference in arrival to the breeding areas (18 days earlier), pre‐nesting duration (90.9% longer), and incubation initiation dates (9 days earlier) between western‐ and eastern‐Arctic breeding regions, with contrasting effects on breeding outcomes, but no migration characteristic strongly influenced breeding outcome. We found that breeding region influenced whether an individual likely pursued a capital or income breeding strategy. Where individuals fell along the capital‐income breeding continuum was influenced by longitude, revealing geographic effects of life‐history strategy among conspecifics. Factors that govern breeding outcomes likely occur primarily upon arrival to breeding areas or are related to individual quality and previous breeding outcome, and may not be directly tied to migratory decision‐making across broad scales.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".