The Need for Coherence Between Waterfowl Harvest and Habitat Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two of the most significant management efforts affecting waterfowl populations in North America are the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (the Plan) and Federal harvest management programs. Both the Plan and harvest management are continental in scope, involve an extensive group of stakeholders, and rely on adaptive processes of biological planning, implementation, and evaluation. The development of these programs has occurred independently, however, and there has been little explicit recognition that both harvest and habitat effects should be considered for coherent management planning and evaluation. For example, the harvest strategy can affect whether population objectives of the Plan are met, irrespective of the success of the Plan's habitat conservation efforts. Conversely, habitat conservation activities under the Plan can influence harvest potential and, therefore, the amount of hunting opportunity provided. It seems increasingly clear that the Plan's waterfowl population objectives can only be useful for conservation planning and evaluation if they are accompanied by an explicit specification of the harvest strategy and environmental conditions under which they are to be achieved. This clarification also is necessary to ensure that Plan population objectives are not attained solely through the reduction of hunting opportunity. We believe then that it is imperative that these key waterfowl-management programs work to harmonize their objectives. Harvest management programs and the Plan ought to be working toward the same ends, but that is not possible so long as the mutually reinforcing relationship of these programs is obscured by ambiguities in their management objectives.
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 | 0.078 | 0.085 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".