Status of Sharp-tailed Grouse in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Populations, past and current distributions, and predicted trends of 6 subspecies of sharp-tailed grouse (Pedioecetes phasianellus) in North America were ascertained through a questionnaire and literature review. Sharptails once occurred in at least 29 provinces and states of Canada and the United States; they now are found in 21, having been extirpated from 8 states at the periphery of their historical range. Distributional losses usually have been accompanied by intensive grazing or conversion of native vegetation to cropland. Fifteen questionnaire respondents predicted distributional losses over the next 10 years and 16 predicted stability. None foresaw distributional gains . The northern 3 subspecies of sharp-tailed grouse, P. _p_. phasianellus (northern), P. _p_. kennicotti (northwesternT, and f. _p_. caurus (Alaskan) have received little management or research, although increased human activities are expected in parts of their ranges. Of the southern 3 subspecies, Columbian sharptails (f. _p_. columbianus) are fewest in number (60,000 to 170,000), occurri ng as isolated populations throughout most of their range. They have undergone range reductions exceeding 90% in 7 of 10 political subdivisions of their historic range. Prairie sh arptails (f. _p_. campestris) number between 600,000 and 2,000 , 000 exclusive of Ontario and Saskatchewan. They have been extirpated from 2 states and f utu re distributio nal losses are expected, even in the center of their range . Plains sharp-tailed grouse (P_p_. jamesi) number between 600,000 and 3,000 ,000, exclusive of peripheral populations in British Columbia and Man itoba. They have been extirpated from 3 states and are cla ssified as "endangered" in Colorado, but are expected to remain fairly stable in the center of their range.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".