First Record of Fulvous Whistling-Duck (<i>Dendrocygna bicolor</i>) for Nebraska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On the afternoon of 5 June 2018, I was scouting local Salt Valley lakes to get an estimate of goose numbers for annual Canada Goose (Branta canadensis) banding operations. At approximately 2:30 p.m. I was tallying my goose counts in the northwest corner of Wagon Train Wildlife Management Area in Lancaster County, when I noticed four ducks on a nearby vegetated mud flat. After closer examination, I recognized the ducks as Fulvous Whistling-Ducks (Dendrocygna bicolor). I spent a few years working in Louisiana in that state’s waterfowl program, and I am familiar with the species and its identification. I was surprised to observe them here in Nebraska, but I did not fully comprehend the magnitude of the discovery until the news reached Joel Jorgensen with the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission’s Nongame Bird Program. Since the initial observation, multiple re-sightings by numerous individuals occurred (eBird 2018). Reports indicated no bands were observed and hind toes were intact (eBird 2018), suggesting the ducks are wild. The ducks were last reported on 24 June 2018 (eBird 2018). This is the first documented occurrence of Fulvous Whistling-Ducks in the state of Nebraska.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".