Effects of hunting pressure and collection method bias on body mass of drake mallards
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We weighed hunter‐killed mallards (Anas platyrhynchos; n = 4,747) during the 2005, 2008, and 2009 hunting seasons in Manitoba, Minnesota, North Dakota, Saskatchewan, and South Dakota to examine effects of hunting pressure on body mass. Our final model indicated that main effects describing age, hunting pressure, hunting method, season, relative harvest date, and selected interactions were influential in predicting mass of drake mallards during fall. Body mass of hatch‐year and after‐hatch‐year drake mallards harvested in low hunting pressure jurisdictions was 4.3% and 2.5% greater, respectively, than those harvested in high hunting pressure jurisdictions. Body mass of drake mallards from low hunting pressure jurisdictions was 12.1% greater for birds that were harvested using pass or jump shooting hunting methods than those that were harvested by hunters using decoys over dry agricultural fields. When possible, managers should consider disturbance during planning stages of attracting mallards, and not rely upon dry agricultural fields as foraging resources for mallards unless a positive energy balance can be achieved. Finally, studies examining physiological condition of waterfowl must account for collection technique. © 2012 The Wildlife Society.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".