Factors Influencing Reporting and Harvest Probabilities in North American Geese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT We assessed variation in reporting probabilities of standard bands among species, populations, harvest locations, and size classes of North American geese to enable estimation of unbiased harvest probabilities. We included reward (US$10, $20, $30, $50, or $100) and control ($0) banded geese from 16 recognized goose populations of 4 species: Canada ( Branta canadensis ), cackling ( B. hutchinsii ), Ross's ( Chen rossii ), and snow geese ( C. caerulescens ). We incorporated spatially explicit direct recoveries and live recaptures into a multinomial model to estimate reporting, harvest, and band‐retention probabilities. We compared various models for estimating harvest probabilities at country (United States vs. Canada), flyway (5 administrative regions), and harvest area (i.e., flyways divided into northern and southern sections) scales. Mean reporting probability of standard bands was 0.73 (95% CI = 0.69–0.77). Point estimates of reporting probabilities for goose populations or spatial units varied from 0.52 to 0.93, but confidence intervals for individual estimates overlapped and model selection indicated that models with species, population, or spatial effects were less parsimonious than those without these effects. Our estimates were similar to recently reported estimates for mallards ( Anas platyrhynchos ). We provide current harvest probability estimates for these populations using our direct measures of reporting probability, improving the accuracy of previous estimates obtained from recovery probabilities alone. Goose managers and researchers throughout North America can use our reporting probabilities to correct recovery probabilities estimated from standard banding operations for deriving spatially explicit harvest probabilities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".