2011-2012 Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey: Behavior, Satisfaction, and Video-Watching of Waterfowl Hunters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 2,503 (52%) Illinois waterfowl hunters responded to the 2011-2012Illinois Waterfowl Hunter Survey. Hunters reported spending 1,147,037 days afield, an increase of 16% from the 985,075days devoted during the 2010-2011license year. Waterfowl harvest increased 12% from 513,882 during 2010-2011 to 577,654 during 2011-2012. Duck harvest estimates for the regular duck season were as follows: 222,405mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), 54,294wood ducks (Aix sponsa), and 150,786 other ducks. A total of 21,227 teal (Anas spp.) were harvested during the September teal season.Goose hunters harvested 75,061Canada geese (Branta canadensis) during the regular Canada goose season, a 25% decrease from the 99,422Canadageese harvested during the 2010-2011regular goose season. Hunters harvested 18,790Canada geese during the September Canada goose season, a 10% increase from the previous year. During the YouthWaterfowl Hunting Season, 6,325 adults took 8,642youths waterfowl hunting, a 16%increase from the 7,452youths that participated in the 2010-2011Youth Waterfowl Hunting Season. We discuss the use of public duck permits, hunter satisfaction with the waterfowl seasons, and hunter viewing habits regardingwaterfowl hunting videos.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".