MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2217681585 · doi:10.3996/042015-jfwm-035

Annual Survival Rate Estimate of Satellite Transmitter–Marked Eastern Population Greater Sandhill Cranes

2015· article· en· W2217681585 on OpenAlexafffund
David L. Fronczak, David E. Andersen, Everett E. Hanna, Thomas R. Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish and Wildlife Management · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsBirds Canada
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceOntario Federation of Anglers and HuntersTD Friends of the Environment FoundationU.S. Geological SurveyUniversity of Minnesota
KeywordsSandhillPopulationGrus (genus)EcologyGeographyFisheryBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Several surveys have documented the increasing population size and geographic distribution of Eastern Population greater sandhill cranes Grus canadensis tabida since the 1960s. Sport hunting of this population of sandhill cranes started in 2012 following the provisions of the Eastern Population Sandhill Crane Management Plan. However, there are currently no published estimates of Eastern Population sandhill crane survival rate that can be used to inform harvest management. As part of two studies of Eastern Population sandhill crane migration, we deployed solar-powered global positioning system platform transmitting terminals on Eastern Population sandhill cranes (n = 42) at key concentration areas from 2009 to 2012. We estimated an annual survival rate for Eastern Population sandhill cranes from data resulting from monitoring these cranes by using the known-fates model in the MARK program. Estimated annual survival rate for adult Eastern Population sandhill cranes was 0.950 (95% confidence interval = 0.885–0.979) during December 2009–August 2014. All fatalities (n = 5) occurred after spring migration in late spring and early summer. We were unable to determine cause of death for crane fatalities in our study. Our survival rate estimate will be useful when combined with other population parameters such as the population index derived from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fall survey, harvest, and recruitment rates to assess the effects of harvest on population size and trend and evaluate the effectiveness of management strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.277

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish and Wildlife ManagementSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207