MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2104588146

Results of the 1998-1999 Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey

2002· article· en· W2104588146 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Craig A. Miller, William L. Anderson, Linda K. Campbell, Jessica A. Yeagle

Bibliographic record

VenueIllinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlGeographyEcologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A total of 3,117 (66%) Illinois waterfowl hunters responded to the 2001-2002 Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey.Hunters reported spending 1,337,297 days afield, an increase of 20% from the 1,115,076 days expended during the 2000-2001 license year.The waterfowl harvest decreased 1.7% from 708,092 during 2000-2001 to 695,790 during 2001-2002.Duck harvest estimates were as follows: 305,180 mallards, 61,515 wood ducks, 167,883 other ducks, and 534,578 total ducks.A total of 36,013 teal were harvested during the early (September) teal season.Goose hunters harvested 64,907 Canada geese during the regular Canada goose season. OBJECTIVETo survey waterfowl (duck, goose, and coot) hunters annually to determine their activities, harvest, characteristics, attitudes, and opinions. METHODSA total of 4,729 waterfowl hunters were sampled from the population of Illinois migratory bird hunters registered with the federal Harvest Information Program (HIP).Beginning in March 2002, hunters were mailed an 8-page, self-administered questionnaire and a letter of explanation (Appendices A and B).The questionnaire addressed days afield, harvest, and attitudes toward issues related to the waterfowl seasons, bag limits, and management practices.Hunters received a followup postcard 10 days after the questionnaire, thanking them for returning their survey questionnaire and reminding nonrespondents to return the completed questionnaire.Nonrespondents received a second questionnaire 10 days after the postcard reminder, followed 10 days later with another postcard.We received 3,117 (65.9%) questionnaires from hunters in the sample, of which 2,776 (89.1%) hunted waterfowl in Illinois in 2001-2002.Estimates of number of hunters, days afield, and waterfowl harvested were computed following the procedures outlined by Anderson et al. (1998).Coded data were entered and analyzed using SPSS 6.0. SEASON LENGTHS AND BAG LIMITSHunters enjoyed a 16-day early (September) teal season with a 4-bird daily bag limit, a 15day/2-bird (or 5-bird) early (September) Canada goose season, a 60-day/6-bird duck season, and a 54,800 statewide Canada goose quota (season dates and lengths varied according to zone).See Appendix C for details of season dates, legal shooting hours, and bag limits. RESULTS Waterfowl Harvest and Days AfieldThe number of waterfowl hunters increased from 56,954 during the 2000-2001 season to 59,029 during the 2001-2002 season, which represents a 3.6% increase in hunters (Table 1).Hunters reported spending 1,337,297 days afield in 2001-2002, an increase of 20% from the 1,115,076 days recorded for 2000-2001.The waterfowl harvest decreased 1.7% from 708,092 during 2000-2001 to 695,790 during 2001-2002.One-third (33%) of the hunters hunted ducks only, whereas 10% hunted geese only, and 57% hunted both ducks and geese (Table 2). TealThe number of early (September) teal hunters increased 17% from 14,733 during 200014,733 during -200114,733 during to 17,222 during 200114,733 during -2002 (Table 3) (Table 3).Days afield also increased 17% from 52,229 during 200052,229 during -200152,229 during to 61,199 during 200152,229 during -200252,229 during .The 200152,229 during -2002 hunters harvested 36,013 blue-winged teal (Anas discors)green-winged teal (A.crecca), a decrease of 6.7% compared to the previous year's harvest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.168

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIllinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→