AN INDIVIDUAL WHOOPING CRANE'S FAMILY HISTORY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 1977 and 1988, 12 cohorts (134 individuals) of whooping cranes (Grus americana) were banded in Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP, Canada-breeding ground) and monitored from Canada to Aransas National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR, Texas-wintering ground). During 2004, historical data on banded individuals was analyzed to estimate population parameters and life table of the wild population. This study used information from one of the few banded cranes known to be alive in 2008 since 1978. A genealogy tree (Family Tree Maker software) was developed from individual RwR-nil to represent its descendents and relatives, as well as a map (GIS) for geographic distribution. We found that his descendents were: 4 in the first generation, at least 13 in the second generation, and 4 in the fourth generation. In total 21 descendents arrived to ANWR, and 3 of them are still alive. We identified that all males in the family selected nesting and winter territories and did not change territories with new mates. Banded females did. All nests were established in the Sass River nesting area of WBNP, and all wintering territories were in Matagorda Island, which are close to their parents' territories. History of mates, nesting fate (success, failures, no nest), number of eggs, chicks, and juveniles were analyzed, as were territory distribution and use of stopovers. Years of nesting success and failure occurred in synchrony among members of the family. Evidence of potential inbreeding, adoption, and extended family migration was collected. Information from this family will contribute to studies of kin selection and inclusive fitness.
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) | 0.008 | 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".