An Estimate of Bias In Tail-Fan Surveys of Rocky Mountain Canada Geese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tail lan3 from Canrda ge eEe (Brantd cdnad.ntis)shot by hunters are eradined annuslly to estimate age ratios (inmaturei adult).Sone innaturea conpletly replace inmtur (notched) tail fathers with adult (unnotched) feathers before the nd of hunttug seeson.To analFe rhe significance of this molt, two fall estimates of the nunbers of inmaturee and adulb in the Rocky Mountain Canada goose population (RMP) were used to calculate erpectd tsil-fan ag ratios.The accuracy of theee ratioe was as-ser6ed by dtimating tb percentage of immatures completing the tail molt to ad.iust the nunbers of ibmstures (bir& with at lcart one notched tail feather) rnd apparent rdults (adulr6 plu6 imnaturee rith rdult-looling tail fesrhrs) rvailsbte for sanpling in tail-fan surveyr.Conparison of the estinated observed ratios to a nsr age r.tio ftolr tbe survy irdicstd reasonable rerulb.Erpected tail-fan age ratios were from 0.9 to l.l versus atr obrerved ratio of 0.2.Tsil-fen ratios scross No h America were enmined in relatior to larirude of resiiug and suggested that resting phenology, as it influences the tirre of molt, ie a critical factor effecting the degee ot bias in Cauda goose tail-far surveys.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".