Determining the Distribution and Abundance of Wintering Red-tailed Hawk Subspecies in Illinois
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining the Distribution and Abundance of Wintering Red-tailed Hawk Subspecies in Illinois Steven Burkett2, Rebekah Harden1, Miles Keeton2, Meredith Fraker1 and R. Given Harper* Biology Department1 and Environmental Studies2 Program, Illinois Wesleyan University Red-tailed Hawks (RTHA), which are one of the most common raptorial birds in North America, are often seen soaring or hunting from trees and the tops of utility poles. Five of twelve recognized subspecies winter in Illinois: Buteo jamaicensis borealis, the predominant subspecies found year-round in Illinois and eastern North America; B. j. calarus (breeds in western North America); B. j. kriderii (breeds in northern Great Plains and western Canada); B. j. harlani (breeds in Alaska); B. j. abieticola (breeds from New England to southeast Alaska; under consideration as a distinct subspecies). Few systematic efforts have been conducted to determine the winter distribution and abundance of RTHA subspecies within the state. Wintering RTHAs in Illinois were identified via analyses of photos of live-trapped hawks, photo submissions to eBird (a national repository of documented bird sightings in the U.S.), documentation in Vert Net (listing of RTHA study skins in museum collections), photos from private individuals, and winter raptor surveys. Preliminary analyses of photos (n = 390) indicate that B. j. borealis comprised 90.3% of sightings, followed by B. j. abieticola (3.5%), B. j. calurus (2.7%), B. j. harlani (2.7%) and B. j. kriderii (0.8%). Our analysis corroborates Wheeler’s (2018) distribution map for B. j. calurus and B.j. borealis, which winter throughout Illinois. However, the Wheeler distribution maps of wintering B. j. kriderii and B. j. harlanii only extended into the southwestern edge of Illinois. In contrast, our data indicate they winter northeast of Wheeler’s demarcation, extending into central and northern Illinois. These data can inform future conservation efforts and aid in understanding how climate change may alter the winter distribution pattern of RTHA subspecies in the midwestern U.S.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".