MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2961149361

Protecting Canada geese on a wildlife management area in east-central Nevada

2004· article· en· W2961149361 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zackary L. Bowers

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland and Wildlife Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlWildlifePredationGeographyHabitatFisheryEcologyNest (protein structural motif)Biology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In early 2003, at the request of the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW), Wildlife Services (WS) conducted wildlife damage management (WDM) activities to protect nesting waterfowl within the Key Pitman Wildlife Management Area (KPWMA) in east-central Nevada. The WDM activities were aimed primarily at protecting Canada geese from predators, primarily coyotes and common ravens. The KPWMA (approximately 2,000 hectares) provides important habitat for the nesting and rearing of Canada geese in a predominantly desert area. Although the KPWMA’s habitat has been judged by biologists to be adequate for successful waterfowl nesting, the number of gosling geese hatching and surviving to flight stage in recent years has been considered by NDOW biologists to be unacceptably low. Predatory mammalian and avian species seen concentrated around water areas of the WMA were believed to be a primary factor in the low survivability. WS was contracted by NDOW to conduct WDM activities during the period of the goslings’ greatest vulnerability to predation, March through June. As per directions from NDOW, WDM activities targeted only coyotes and common ravens found within, or immediately adjoining, waterfowl nesting areas. A significant increase in the number of goslings surviving to flight stage was set as the measure of whether the project was a success. WS used DRC-1339-treated chicken eggs placed in close proximity to waterfowl nesting areas to reduce raven numbers at these specific sites. To remove offending coyotes, WS utilized leghold traps, trail snares, and calling and shooting. NDOW reported a significant increase in Canada goose goslings surviving to flight stage following the 4-month treatment period, and deemed the project a success.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.546
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.166 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicRangeland and Wildlife ManagementFrench-language works237,207