MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7006095956

Summary of Priority Research and\nManagement Needs for Migratory Shore and Upland Game Birds

2011· article· en· W7006095956 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShoreTask forceScrutinyTask (project management)HabitatProcess (computing)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction\nIn 2006, the Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird Working Group (Working Group) established a Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird Support Task Force (Task Force). The Task Force is composed of nine representatives of state, federal, and non-governmental organizations. The Task Force was directed to update the research and management needs of the 16 species of migratory shore and upland game birds (Table 1) and to develop a strategy for funding priority research and management needs for these species. The Strategies include those priorities that will significantly improve the management of Migratory Shore and Upland Game Birds and thus, represent a significant winnowing of potential research and management needs from more than three thousand, identified in earlier planning efforts, to 26. In a time of increased budget scrutiny and justification, these Strategies represent a significant accomplishment by focusing our efforts on the most important actions.\nStrategy Purpose\nThe six Strategies each contain recommendations for obtaining priority information needed to improve habitat and harvest management decisions for the 16 species of migratory shore and upland game birds. The Strategies focus on evaluating and improving monitoring efforts, measuring vital rates (survival, reproduction, and recruitment) and evaluating habitat needs during the annual life cycle of these birds. The Strategies are intended to provide guidance for research and management activities, and to increase financial support for the program during the next 5–10 years.\nSTRATEGY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS\nThe Task Force determined that convening groups of species experts would be the most efficient and effective process for developing the strategies. Experts from universities, and from state and federal agencies in the United States (U.S.) and Canada participated in the process. More than 90 experts collaborated on one or more of the Strategies (Appendix A). Many of these experts are intimately involved with the North American Flyway system of managing migratory game birds. Strategy development included a combination of in-person and online meetings, followed by additional work via email, online meetings, and conference calls. The first Strategy was completed in June 2008 and the final Strategy was completed in February 2011.\nPriority Information Needs determined for each of the 16 species are listed below. Full versions of the Priority Information Needs Funding Strategies are available on-line at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Program website. The reports can be found by selecting the “Webless Migratory Game Birds” link under the “Research” heading (http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/ NewsPublicationsReports.html). Hard copies of each Strategy can also be obtained by contacting the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service — Division of Migratory Bird Management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207