MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

SUMMARY OF SANDHILL CRANE SPORT HARVEST IN CANADA 1975-2006

2010· article· en· W13652994 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Adrianna C. Araya, Kammie L. Kruse, Keith Douglass Warner

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Cell Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsSandhillWaterfowlGeographyWildlifePopulationGrus (genus)FisheryEcologyHabitatDemographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge of harvest in all areas where the mid-continent population (MCP) of sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) occurs is critical to managing the population in a sustainable manner. The harvest of MCP in the U.S. has been well documented; however, the harvest in Canada has received less attention. The Canadian Wildlife Service initiated a National Harvest Survey program in 1967, but all sampling variables were not directly comparable until 1975. In this paper, we summarize crane harvest in Canada during the 1975-2006 hunting seasons for Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the 2 provinces with significant sport hunting harvest of sandhill cranes. There has been a significant decline over the last 3 decades in the number of potential resident hunters, a decrease in the estimated number of active non-waterfowl hunters, and a decrease in the estimated number of hunter days afield. Conversely, the number of potential non-resident hunters, active non-waterfowl hunters, and number of hunter days afield in Saskatchewan began to increase after 1995, the year sandhill crane hunting was opened to non-residents. An increasing trend in both the number of sandhill cranes harvested and success rate among non-resident hunters, particularly in Saskatchewan, occurred whereas the number of sandhill cranes harvested and success by residents has remained relatively stable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.157
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental Cell ResearchSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207