Site selection and foraging behavior of Aleutian Canada geese in a newly colonized spring staging area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The once endangered Aleutian Canada goose (Branta canadensis leucopareia) population made a \ndramatic recovery and was reclassifi ed from endangered to threatened in 1990 and removed from the threatened \nspecies list in 2001. In 1997 the birds began using a new spring staging area adjacent to Humboldt Bay \nin northern California. The new staging area, primarily dairy pastureland, is located ~150 km south of the \npopulation???s traditional spring staging area. Numbers increased in the new area from 1997, and peaked at \n19,000 individuals (~50% of the total population) in early March 2002. In the northern Humboldt Bay staging \narea, foraging sites were located within 1 km of the bay???s associated tributaries. Forty-fi ve percent of goosedays \nwere on pastures characterized as green (>95% green grass) with short to medium grass height (13???30 \ncm) and with some standing water, which represented 15% of the available habitat. Older pasture of medium \ngrass height (30???60 cm) with standing water represented only 2% of available habitat but was the second most \nfrequently used habitat (25%). At night the geese roosted initially on a pasture that was surrounded by narrow \ntributaries and later on a temporarily fl ooded pasture located behind large dunes that provided shelter from prevailing \noceanic winds. A comparison between farms that did and did not attract the geese indicated that geese \nfavored habitats with a larger percent cover of water (fresh or brackish) and those near to bodies of fresh water \n>750 m2. The geese spent 87% of the observed periods foraging on pasture plants. The continual increase in \nabdominal fat score indices over 90 days indicated that the geese were apparently acquiring reserves beyond \nrequirements for daily maintenance energy.
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".