MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Having a gander at goose behaviour. Evaluating time-activity of captive and wild geese at two different wetland sites

2025· article· en· W4411507389 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Rose, Amelia Roper, Joe Thomas, Robert J. Kelly, Michelle F O’Brien

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Animal Behaviour Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsRoyal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGooseWetlandZoologyTime budgetBiologyFisheryAnimal-assisted therapyWaterfowlAnimal scienceVeterinary medicineEcologyAnimal welfarePet therapyHabitatMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Geese are not common subjects for behavioural investigation in zoological facilities, despite their popularity in waterfowl collections and their complex ecological needs. This research evaluated time-activity budgets of six goose species housed at two UK Wildfowl & Wetland Trust (WWT) centres, comparing captive population behaviours with two species of wild goose. Using a standardised ethogram and instantaneous focal sampling, we recorded over 220 hours of behavioural data across 892 observations. All data were recorded in spring and summer of 2015, 2017 and 2018. Data were analysed using linear mixed models and zero-inflated models to account for high frequencies of zero occurrences in alert and social behaviours. Results show that whilst captive and wild geese broadly perform similar species-typical behaviours, captive birds exhibited higher levels of resting and lower social engagement. Foraging and locomotion differed significantly by species, and this may be a factor of ecological niche. Minimal stereotypic behaviour (<2% of observations) was recorded in the captive birds, suggesting that the large, naturalistic enclosures provided by WWT support positive welfare by enabling appetitive behaviours, such as grazing. However, high inactivity rates highlight the need for further enrichment and dynamic enclosure management to be considered to further improve goose behavioural diversity. Comparisons with wild geese provide useful benchmarks for evaluating behavioural normality under human care. This research supports the use of time-activity budgets as a practical tool for developing evidence-based, species-specific husbandry guidelines. We recommend future research focusses on long-term, individual-bird behavioural monitoring, seasonal comparisons, and the incorporation of personality profiling to further our understanding of how geese respond to their captive care at the population, species and individual bird level.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Animal Behaviour ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207