2013-2014 Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Report: Harvest, Season Preferences, and Digest Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 3,278(46%response rate) Illinois waterfowl hunters responded to the 2013-14Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey. An estimated 49,170 waterfowl hunters spent1,052,728 days afield, adecreaseof 8.9% from the 1,155,346 days devoted during the 2012-2013 license year. Waterfowl harvest increased 4.3%, from 580,557 during 2012-13to 605,720 during 2013-14.Duck harvest estimates for the regular duck season were as follows: 225,873 mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), 49,001wood ducks (Aix sponsa), and 155,306 other ducks. A total of 21,967 teal (Anasspp.) were harvested during the September teal season. Goose hunters harvested 104,887Canada geese (Branta canadensis) during the regular Canada goose season, a 44.3% increase from the 72,682 Canadageese harvested during the 2012-13regular goose season. Hunters harvested 15,644 Canada geese during the September Canada goose season, a 13.2% decrease from the previous year. During the Youth Waterfowl Hunting Season, 8,438 adults took 8,639 youths waterfowl hunting, a 7.8% increase in adult participation and a 13.6% decrease in youth participation from the 2012-13 Youth Waterfowl Hunting Season.Duck hunterpreference for season dates and zones,satisfaction with the waterfowl seasons, and record keeping are also discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".