Resolving Conflicts with Double-Crested Cormorants (<i>Phalocrocorax auritus</i>): The Importance of Knowledge-Based and Non-Traditional Approaches, an Introduction
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper introduces the special section prepared for Waterbirds from selected papers originally presented at a symposium titled “Recent Advances in Biology and Management of Double-crested Cormorants (Phalocrocorax auritus)”, held in Bar Harbor, Maine, USA, at the 39th Annual Meeting of the Waterbird Society, 11–15 August 2015. The principal objective of this symposium was to explore and communicate about ways to address conflicts with this species that would result in fewer birds being killed under legal management programs. Fifteen papers were presented in three subject categories: population status and new research; knowledge-based challenges for Double-crested Cormorant management; and ethical, bird conservation and other perspectives on cormorant management. Three papers from the second two categories provided unique and important perspectives on ways to manage conflicts in which fewer birds would be destroyed and are presented here. The well-developed approaches in these papers are important steps toward a knowledge-based path to resolving conflicts and, most importantly, living with Double-crested Cormorants.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it