MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147093276 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.689

Demographics of Canada geese introduced in western Colorado

2014· article· en· W2147093276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Todd A. Sanders, Joshua L. Dooley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrantaDemographicsGeographyGooseHunting seasonJuvenileWaterfowlAnatidaeBiologyFisheryEcologyDemographyHabitatPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Breeding populations of Canada geese ( Branta canadensis ) were established throughout western Colorado during 1955–1988 using geese transplanted from other areas. Subsequently, there has been no assessment of demographics and winter distributions on these local populations. Managers need this information to effectively manage breeding populations of Canada geese to provide publics with recreational opportunities and to reduce human‐goose conflicts in western Colorado, particularly for segments of internationally recognized populations with cooperative management plans. We conducted a band recovery study during 2000–2006 to assess demographics and winter distributions of Canada geese breeding in 7 subareas of western Colorado. Cooperators banded 19,189 geese during June and early July. We recaptured 5,185 of these geese 1–4 times during banding operations in subsequent years and most (97%) were recaptured in the subarea of banding the year after banding. We obtained 2,921 useable band recoveries through May 2007, and most (98%) recoveries were a result of either being shot or found dead during hunting season. Direct band recoveries (<1 year after banding) were recovered almost exclusively in Colorado (87%) and New Mexico (12%), and indirect band recoveries (≥1 year after banding) showed similar distribution (73% in Colorado and 16% in New Mexico). Geese in subareas of western Colorado had different recovery distributions, and contributed to 4 wintering concentrations of Canada geese in western and central Colorado and New Mexico. Annual survival probability for adult geese was 0.864 ± 0.012. The survival probability for juvenile geese was 0.503 ± 0.026, but we did find evidence that this estimate may be biased low. We used the band reporting probability of 0.525 ± 0.071 to derive harvest rates from band recovery rates. Harvest rate was 0.128 ± 0.018 for adult geese and 0.169 ± 0.024 for juvenile geese. Survival probability was lesser and harvest rate greater for the 3 western subareas (Western Plateau) compared to the 4 eastern subareas (Rocky Mountains). Our results suggest that Canada geese that breed and molt in western Colorado have high survival probability and are largely non‐migratory with some movement in winter from high to low elevation areas primarily in Colorado. To effectively manage the growing resident goose population in western Colorado, managers may need to increase harvest rates for these geese. © 2014 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.862

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife ManagementSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207