BREEDING GROUND AFFILIATION AND MOVEMENTS OF GREATER WHITE-FRONTED GEESE STAGING IN NORTHWESTERN TEXAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Data from neck-band observations were used to determine breeding-ground affiliation, period of use, and winter movement patterns of greater white-fronted geese (Anser albifrons frontalis) observed in the Winchester Lakes region of northwestern Texas. Over 1,265 observations of nearly 800 individual neck-banded geese (3.2% of all neck-banded white-fronted geese in North America) were recorded in the region from 1988 through 1996. More than 4,200 observations of these individuals were recorded throughout North America. Observations peaked in November and February, indicating that the Winchester Lakes region is a migratory staging area for white-fronted geese. Only 6% of the birds in this region remained throughout the winter. Most birds staging in the Winchester Lakes region wintered in the rice prairies of coastal Texas and interior Mexico. Eighty-eight percent of the neck-banded geese were from the western portion of the midcontinent population of greater white-fronted geese, primarily representing Interior-Northwest Alaska, Yukon, and Anderson River breeding populations. These breeding populations are characterized by declining trends in population size and survival rates. The status (e.g., population trends, productivity, survival) of these breeding populations must be considered when managing birds in the Winchester Lakes region.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".