Abundance and Distribution of Wintering and Breeding Blue-winged Teal in California: A Review of the Last 150 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reviewed historical records, old and recent publications, eBird, and Christmas Bird Count data to assess the abundance and distribution of Blue-winged Teal (Spatula discors) in California from the late 1870s to 2020. In general, Blue-winged Teal populations have changed from being considered a rare transient and winter visitor that was believed to not breed in California, to occurring at predictable locations in the winter and spring and with breeding records in every non-mountainous region of the state. Some of that difference is likely due to more people looking and improved ability to tell female Cinnamon Teal (Spatula cyanoptera) from female Blue-winged Teal, but data from the Christmas Bird Count over the last 40 years and eBird over the last 10 years demonstrate that Blue-winged Teal populations have increased. Between 2016 and 2018, 11 Blue-winged Teal with transmitters attached during winter in West Sacramento migrated in the spring to a variety of locations including the San Joaquin Valley, Northeastern California, Oregon, Idaho, and Alberta.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".