Migratory connectivity of american woodcock using band return data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT American woodcock (Scolopax minor) are managed as a Central and an Eastern population in the United States and Canada based on band return data showing little crossover between populations or management regions. The observed proportion of crossover between management regions, however, depends on the criteria used to subset the band return data. We analyzed the amount of crossover between management regions using only band return records that represent complete migrations between the breeding and wintering grounds by using only band return records in which the capture took place during the breeding season and the band recovery took place during the wintering season or vice versa (n = 224). Additionally, we applied spatial statistics and a clustering algorithm to investigate woodcock migratory connectivity using this subset of migratory woodcock band return records. Using raw counts, 17.9% of records showed crossover between management regions, a higher proportion than the <5% crossover reported in studies that did not use only migratory band returns. Our results showed woodcock from the breeding grounds in the Central Region largely migrate to destinations within the Central Region, whereas woodcock from the breeding grounds in the Eastern Region migrate to destinations across the entire wintering range and mix with individuals from the Central Region. Using the division coefficient, we estimated that 54% of woodcock from the breeding grounds of the Eastern Region migrate to the Central Region wintering grounds. Our result that many woodcock from separate regions of the breeding grounds mix on the wintering grounds has implications for the 2‐region basis for woodcock management. Elucidating finer scale movement patterns among regions provides a basis for reassessing the need for separate management regions to ensure optimal conservation and management of the species. © 2017 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".