USE OF FRESHWATER PONDS BY WHOOPING CRANES DURING A DROUGHT\nPERIOD
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whooping cranes (Grus americana) spend nearly half their annual cycle in coastal habitats within and around the Aransas National Wildlife Refuge Complex (ANWRC) located in the central portion of the Texas Coast. When drought conditions prevail in their winter range and salinities in the local bays exceed 23 parts per thousand (ppt), whooping cranes must seek alternate sources of dietary drinking water (Stehn 2008, Chavez- Ramirez and Wehtje 2012). They begin frequent (often daily) trips to freshwater sources in upland areas. These trips may result in extra energy expenditures that can impact their overall health and ability to store energy for spring migration (Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). We opportunistically used game camera images obtained from a physiological research project (B. Hartup, unpublished data) to gain additional information on how whooping cranes used refuge-managed freshwater resources in relation to prevailing environmental conditions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".