Assessing the Needs ofSage-Grouse Local Working Groups: Final Technical Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last several decades, biologists have grown increasingly concerned about declines in populations of two species of sage-grouse (Centrocercus spp.), a bird whose range covers a vast portion of eleven western U.S. states and two Canadian provinces (Stiver et al. 2006). This chicken-sized bird inhabits sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) habitats on public and private land across its range. Recent declines in population numbers of this bird across its range have generated concern among landowners and state wildlife officials that the bird may be listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Sage-grouse local working groups (LWGs) have emerged as a centerpiece of a voluntary effort to address declines in sage-grouse populations in the Intermountain West. As of 2008, over 60 LWGs had been established across the western United States. The majority of these groups have written local sage-grouse management plans and many have begun to implement these plans by seeking funding, coordinating management actions, and designing research to address knowledge gaps.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.010 |
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".