MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6990124830

The Cowan Lake Waterfowl Study

2005· article· en· W6990124830 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlFishingNettingPopulationFish <Actinopterygii>
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

owan Lake is a 700-acre lake about seven miles southwest of Wilmington in Clinton County.The lake was formed in 1950 by damming Cowan Creek.It is the centerpiece of Cowan Lake State Park.The web site at http://www.ohiodnr.com/parks/parkslcowanlk.htm fully describes the location and facilities available.The Delorme map reference is p.77 05.In the spring of 2005 I tried with some success to count the waterfowl on Cowan Lake every day that weather permitted.Cowan Lake is small enough that all the birds on the lake can be counted in six stops along the south shore, accessible from OH 350.Counting usually took about an hour and I tried to time my visits for the last hour before sunset.The waterfowl numbers given below are a summary of those counts.Cowan 's contribution to waterfowl migration was limited by the constraints of open water conditions during the early weeks and by human use when the weather warmed up.Before 15 Feb there was too much ice for the counts to be representative.On the other hand, waterfowl concentrations are very sens itive to human use of the lake.Waterfowl numbers nose-dived with even three or four boats on the lake.After 5 Apr, human traffic on the lake precluded use by more than a handfu l of waterfowl, and most of those were the Canada geese and mallards that breed there.Aggregating the numbers of waterfowl gives a partial picture of the main thrust of waterfowl migration.In Figure I , aggregated numbers are plotted against a linear scale.Plotting the data against a semilog scale, asin Figure 2, gives a better picture of usage.From this chart it is easy to see that during the period there were usually several hundred waterfowl on the lake on days that were conducive to taking data.Note that a zero on this chart indicates that no count was made on that date.From these charts, it is evident that two big pushes occurred, one between 8 Mar and 16 Mar and another between 23 Mar and 31 Mar.

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)0.001
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 score0.534
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida)→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→