Results of the 2007-2008 Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A total of 2,363 potential Illinois waterfowl hunters returned usable questionnaires for the 2008-2009 Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey (53% response rate). Of these returns, 1,935 (82%) were from respondents who purchased an Illinois Migratory Waterfowl Stamp for the 2008-2009 seasons. These stamp purchasers included 1,633 (84%) individuals who hunted waterfowl in Illinois in 2008-2009. Based on waterfowl hunting licenses and stamps sold, we estimated 59,379 Illinois waterfowl hunters spent an estimated 1,175,243 days hunting during the 2008-2009 season, and harvested an estimated 660,306 waterfowl. There were an estimated 14,652 September teal hunters; they spent 52,365 days hunting, and they harvested 19,981 teal. During the regular duck season 50,683 hunters spent 600,574 days hunting and harvested an estimated 247,895 mallards, 43,051 wood ducks, and 156,849 other ducks, for a total of 447,795 ducks. During the regular goose season, an estimated 44,404 hunters spent 461,868 days hunting and harvested 142,806 Canada geese and 17,956 other geese. The harvest of all geese during the regular goose season in 2008-2009 was estimated at 160,762 birds, compared to a total goose harvest of 152,787 in 2007-2008 Fifty percent of hunters in the North Zone felt that the September Goose season was too short; 46% of Central Zone hunters felt the season was too short and 46% and 53% of hunters in the Central and South Zones, respectively, felt that the length of the season was about right. The daily bag limit in regular goose season was found to be too low by 70% of hunters in the North Zone and 54% of hunters in the Central Zone. Sixty-one percent of hunters in the South Zone felt the daily bag limit in the regular goose seasons was about right. A majority (70%) of teal hunters were satisfied with the dates (6-21 September) for the early teal season in 2008. Many duck hunters use public waterfowl hunting areas in Illinois that allocate access to blinds and hunting areas via drawings for daily, season-long, or multi-season permits. When queried as to their support for a system where a portion of all available daily permits are issued \n3by drawing ahead of time, 79% of duck hunters in the North Zone, 64% in the Central Zone, and 62% in the South Zone supported issuing at least 25% of permits ahead of time. A majority of hunters (80%), statewide, expressed a preference for on-site duck blind drawings to determine blind access. A majority of duck hunters (89%) also support to retaining the requirement for applicants to possess a valid FOID card. Duck hunters who expressed an opinion were split when asked about the requirement for applications to include the names of all hunting partners at the time the application is submitted; statewide, 50% of hunters expressed support and 50% expressed opposition to the requirement.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».