MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7001143890

Illinois Waterfowl Harvest, Hunter Activity, and Attitudes Toward Teal/Duck/Goose
\n Regulations and Goose Harvest Monitoring System, Plus Ages of Hunters, 1995-96 Season

2009· article· en· W7001143890 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueIllinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlGooseHunting seasonSeasonal breederAnatidaeBranta
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purchasers of the previous year's (1994) Illinois Migratory Waterfowl Stamp were sampled via mail questionnaire to obtain information on waterfowl harvest, hunter activity, and attitudes toward selected issues, during the 1995 season (60,564 stamps were sold in 1995).Of 2,675 respondents (68% response), 414 (15%) did not purchase a stamp again in 1995.Thus, the sample size was reduced to 2,261 respondents, 88% of which hunted waterfowl in Illinois in 1995-96.An estimated 55,454 hunters (4% more than in 1994) expended 884,328 days afield (8% more than in 1994) and harvested 498,854 waterfowl (50% more than in 1994).The ratio of duck hunters to goose hunters was 1.15:1 in 1995-96.During the September teal season, 9,123 hunters spent 24,865 days afield and harvested 19,731 teal (59% more than in 1994).During the regular duck season (increased from 40 to 50 days), 42,499 hunters expended 482,620 days afield and harvested 377,292 ducks (53% more than in 1994) and 3,386 coots.Among duck hunters, 40% used private areas, 27% used public areas, and 33% used both types of areas.During the experimental early September giant Canada goose season in 9 northeastern counties (Region 2), 2,591 hunters spent 9,502 days afield and harvested 2,784 Canada geese.During the regular goose season, 37,060 hunters devoted 367,341 days afield to harvest 92,478 Canada geese (36% more than in 1994) and 3,183 other geese.The Canada goose harvest included.35,414 taken in the Southern Illinois Quota Zone, 5,877 taken in the Rend Lake Quota Zone, 5,902 taken in North Quota Zone Counties, and 15,684 taken in Central Quota Zone Counties, which collectively accounted for 68% of the statewide harvest.The estimated goose harvest in the North and Central Quota Zone Counties was 25% less than the harvest recorded for these counties via the phone-in monitoring system.In the Southern Illinois Quota Zone, 48% of the Canada goose harvest occurred in Williamson county.In the Rend Lake Quota Zone, 70% of the Canada goose harvest took place in Jefferson County.Statewide, 58%.of the goose hunters used private areas, 11% used public areas, and 31% used both types 'of areas. .'Among goose hunters, 4,988 (13%) hunted (or planned to hunt) snow geese during the late (to March 10) season in Illinois.The harvests of Canada geese by county, zone, and region are presented in Appendix A.

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 score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIllinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)→Same topicAvian ecology and behavior→French-language works237,207→