NOTES: GIANT CANADA GOOSE IN WASHINGTON
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 4 December 2004 Granstrand found and photographed Washington’s first fully documented Giant Canada Goose (Branta canadensis maxima) of apparently wild origin near Yakima, Yakima County (Figure 1). On 15 January 2005 he found another at Ice Harbor Dam, Walla Walla County (Mlodinow et al. 2005). Figure 1 shows that the bird at Yakima had white extending back from the top of the cheek patch as well as a white bar across the forehead. Both marks typify maxima, though occasionally other subspecies of the Canada Goose display them, as do some intergrades (Hanson 1997). Additionally, maxima is typically somewhat whiter breasted than B. c. moffitti (Hanson 1997), the common large Canada Goose of Washington and surrounding states and provinces (Johnsgard 1975, Bellrose 1976), and this is evident in Figure 1. Also detectable in the photograph is that the white cheek strap meets the base of the bill. This mark is often present in maxima and is atypical of other taxa (B. Jones in litt). Granstrand also noted this bird’s wing being larger than the nearby examples of moffitti and its proportionally longer neck (not readily evident in the photograph because of the bird’s posture), both features suggesting maxima (Hanson 1997).
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 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) | 0.025 | 0.003 |
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".