SURVIVAL RATES AND RECOVERY DISTRIBUTIONS OF CANADA GEESE BANDED IN NEBRASKA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We analyzed banding and recovery data for Canada geese (Branta canadensis) banded in Nebraska during 1990–2000. Survival rates were lower during 1996–2000 (adult: 0.688, SE = 0.016; juvenile: 0.611, SE = 0.029), than 1990–1995 (adult: 0.727, SE = 0.011; juvenile: 0.639, SE = 0.024). Average juvenile-to-adult ratio from banding data was 0.834 (SD = 0.485), resulting in an annual population growth rate (λ) estimate for 1990–1995 of 0.995 (95% CI = 0.021), and 0.922 (0.018) for 1996–2000. Our recovery analysis suggests that 67% of geese banded in Nebraska are shot in Nebraska. Over 30% of both juvenile and adult recoveries are obtained in December, and geese banded in Lancaster County are recovered in higher numbers during October than geese banded in the Panhandle and Sandhills regions. Sixty to 70% of geese banded in Lancaster County and the Panhandle region are recovered in their respective region, while less than 20% of geese banded in the Sandhills are recovered in the Sandhills. Our analysis suggests that subpopulations of Canada geese in Nebraska differ in their survival and movements. Thus, area-specifi c management could be directed at each subpopulation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".