MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161406318 · doi:10.1002/jwmg.942

Consequences of hunter harvest, winter weather, and increasing population size on survival of non‐migratory Canada geese in Connecticut

2015· article· en· W2161406318 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael R. Conover, Jonathan B. Dinkins, Rebekah E. Ruzicka

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUtah Agricultural Experiment Station
KeywordsBrantaGooseWildlifeHunting seasonPopulationDemographyGeographyBiologyWaterfowlSurvival rateEcologyFisheryHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT In the last few decades, non‐migratory populations of Canada geese (Branta canadensis) have become established in metropolitan areas throughout North America. We banded 1,845 Canada geese in New Haven County, Connecticut, and studied goose survival of geese from 1984 through 2001, a period when local goose numbers increased several fold. Males outnumbered females among adults but not among juveniles. The hunter‐recovery proportion (probability that a goose was harvested by a hunter and its band reported to the U.S. Banding Lab) was 0.17 for all banded geese and was higher for males (0.19) than females (0.15). We used the Seber band‐recovery model in Program MARK to estimate the annual recovery rate and annual survival rate. The annual recovery rate was 0.22 for all geese and varied by year. The annual survival rate was 0.72 for all geese; survival was higher for females than males and higher for juveniles than adults. Survival rates varied among years and decreased in years with higher winter temperatures or more geese observed during Audubon's Christmas Bird Count. During our study, special hunting seasons in Connecticut targeted non‐migratory geese. Despite this, we found survival rates to be at the high end of values reported elsewhere, and the number of geese killed by hunters in Connecticut did not influence survival. Our results suggest that it will be difficult for wildlife agencies to rely solely on hunting to reduce the size of non‐migratory goose populations. © 2015 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)0.001
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 score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.975

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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