Date FACTORS AFFECTING BODY MASS OF PREFLEDGING EMPEROR GEESE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Body mass of prefledging geese has important implications for fitness and population dynamics. To address whether interspecific competition for forage was broadly relevant to prefledging emperor geese, I investigated the factors affecting body mass at three locations across the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Alaska. From 1990 – 2004, densities of cackling geese more than doubled and were ~2 – 5x higher than densities of emperor geese, which were relatively constant over time. During 2003 – 2004, body mass of emperor geese increased with net above-ground primary productivity (NAPP) and grazing lawn extent and declined with interspecific densities of geese (combined density of emperor and cackling geese). Grazing by geese resulted in consumption of ≥ 90 % of the NAPP that occurred during the brood rearing period, suggesting that interspecific competition was due to exploitation of common food resources. At six sampled locations, grazing lawn extent varied among- and within-locations, and was stable or declined slightly during 1999 – 2004, indicating reduced per capita availability. I conclude that negative effects of interspecific goose densities on body mass of prefledging geese are partially responsible for recent declines in the fall age ratio of
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) | 0.010 | 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".