Distribution and migration chronology of Eastern population sandhill cranes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Eastern Population (EP) of greater sandhill cranes ( Antigone canadensis tabida ; cranes) is expanding in size and geographic range. Little information exists regarding the geographic extent of breeding, migration, and wintering ranges, migration chronology, or use of staging areas for cranes in the EP. To obtain these data, we attached solar global positioning system (GPS) platform transmitting terminals (PTTs) to 42 sandhill cranes and monitored daily locations from December 2009 through August 2014. On average, tagged cranes settled in summer areas during late‐March in Minnesota (7%), Wisconsin (29%), Michigan, USA (21%), and Ontario, Canada (38%) and arrived at their winter terminus beginning mid‐December in Indiana (15%), Kentucky (3%), Tennessee (45%), Georgia (5%), and Florida (32%). Cranes initiated spring migration beginning mid‐February to their respective summer areas on routes similar to those used during fall migration. Twenty‐five marked cranes returned to the same summer area after a second spring migration, of which 19 (76%) settled <3 km from the estimated mean center of the summer area of the previous year. During the 2010–2012 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Cooperative Fall Abundance Survey for cranes in the EP, we estimated that approximately 29–31% of cranes that summered in both Wisconsin and the Lower Peninsula of Michigan were not in areas included in the survey. The information we collected on crane movements provides insight into distribution and migration chronology that will aid in assessment of the current USFWS fall survey. In addition, information on specific use sites can assist state and federal managers to identify and protect key staging and winter areas particularly during current and future recreational harvest seasons. © 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 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 | 0.000 | 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".