MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7001262887

Illinois Waterfowl Harvest, Hunter Activity, and Attitudes Toward Shooting hours, Lead
\n poisoning, and Steel shot in 1981

2009· article· en· W7001262887 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
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlShot (pellet)GooseHunting seasonAnatidae
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The 61,929 purchasers of the 1981 Illinois Waterfowl Hunting Stamp were sampled via mail-letter questionnaire (n = 1,240, 83.4% response) to obtain information on waterfowl harvest, hunter activity, and attitudes toward selected issues.Respondents were 98.6% male and averaged 36.2 years of age; 7.0% were non-residents and 10.5% did not hunt waterfowl in Illinois in 1981.Active hunters spent an average of $462 for the 1981 season, which equates to a total expenditure of $25.6 million for waterfowl hunting in the state annually.During the September teal season, 13,085 hunters spent 34,111 days afield and harvested 26,956 teal.During the regular duck season, 48,395 hunters expended 621,936 days afield to harvest 397,208 ducks; they also took 5,817 coots.40.3% of the duck hunting days occurred on public hunting areas, 18.0% on private duck clubs, and 41.7% on other areas.An estimated 28,018 goose hunters devoted 157,370 days afield to their sport and harvested 47,384 geese.There were 25,328 (57.2%)Canada geese taken in the Quota Zone, 8,286 (18.7%) at Rend Lake, and 10,688 (24.1%) in the remainder of the state.Crippling losses totaled 92,129 ducks (23.2 per 100 harvested), 10,787 geese (22.8 per 100 harvested), and 1,518 coots (26.1 per 100 harvested).Most (74.2%) hunters favored beginning legal shooting time during the regular duck season at 1/2 hour before sunrise.47.5% thought lead poisoning was a problem on some, many, or all areas, and 61.6% accepted 1 or more criteria (waterfowl dying, lead in blood, shot in gizzards, and spent shot in habitat) for determining whether areas should be required to use nontoxic shot.More than half (53.9%) of the hunters had never used steel shot for harvesting waterfowl, but 51.9% said they would voluntarily use steel on some areas if asked to do so by the Illinois Department of Conservation.The purpose of this study was to collect information via mail-letter questionnaire from a sample of waterfowl hunters in Illinois following the 1981 season.The need for obtaining data on waterfowl harvest, hunter activity, and attitudes of hunters toward hunting regulations and other issues has become increasingly evident in recent years.Experiments with dividing tirga e yinto zones for purposes of setting the duck hunting season, which began imp 19u77,

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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score0.239

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 topicMercury impact and mitigation studies→French-language works237,207→