Results of the 2007-2008 Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 2,366 potential Illinois waterfowl hunters returned usable questionnaires for the 2007-2008 Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey (50.6% response rate). A total of 1,807 respondents reported purchasing a 2007-2008 Illinois Migratory Waterfowl Stamp, of which 1,496 (82.8%) hunted waterfowl in Illinois in 2007-2008. Based on waterfowl hunting licenses and stamps sold, we estimated 57,454 Illinois waterfowl hunters spent an estimated 1,150,304 days hunting during the 2007-2008 season, and harvested an estimated 678,623 waterfowl. There were an estimated 13,478 September teal hunters; they spent 48,115 days hunting, and they harvested 29,800 teal. Harvest during the regular duck season included an estimated 265,369 mallards, 34,628 wood ducks, and 164,369 other ducks, for a total of 464,366 ducks. Goose hunters harvested an estimated 16,207 Canada geese during the 2007 September season. During the regular goose season, an estimated 43,046 hunters spent 445,670 days hunting and harvested 141,205 Canada geese and 11,582 other geese. Most teal hunters were satisfied with the September teal season dates, most duck hunters were satisfied with the regular duck season dates, and most goose hunters were satisfied with the regular goose season dates. Illinois hunters overwhelmingly (95.0%) chose steel shot as their nontoxic shot for waterfowl hunting in 2007-2008.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".