Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author presents results of the Hungarian Waterfowl Monitoring (HWM) referring to the season 2006/2007. This treatment does not cover geese, the latter being the subject of another publication. Basic data obtained at the 48 sites (Table 1. and Map 1,) are presented for each observed site in Table 3-25. The tables are followed by statements concerning each of the species in regard of population size (Hungary total), population dynamics (Hungary total), territorial dispersion of each species, dynamics characteristic for the certain sites of observations, and on the basis of maximum numbers of various species at the respective sites: designation of areas bearing international importance according to Ramsar Convention Criterion 6. (see Table 2.)(Wetlands International, 2006). The facts mentioned afore are presented for each of the species by means of figures, tables and maps (Table 26-63., Map 2-39. Figure 1-57.) In the framework of the Hungarian Waterfowl Monitoring performed in 2006/2007 we did not obtain data on the following species: Great Northern Diver (Gavia immer), Pink-footed Goose (Anser brachyrhynchus), Canada Goose (Branta canadensis), Marbled Teal (Marmaronetta angustirostris), King Eider {Somateria spectabilis), Common Scoter (Melanitta nigra) and White-headed Duck (Oxyura leucocephala). Lack of data on the 7 species listed above is due to the fact that on the days of synchronous counts of the HWM no individuals of these species were to be seen. As the results of the Hungarian Goose Monitoring are assessed separately, the present paper comprises the results of observations on 38 species. The order of rank of observed waterfowl species as well as the dynamics of the order (Table 65-67.) shows clearly whether species declared huntable are really those with highest numbers. In the report international significance of each site is defined according to 1% Ramsar Convention Criterion 6. For each site those species are listed on the basis of which the aforementioned statement has been made.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".