Endangered Status and Designation of Critical Habitat for Gunnison Sage-grouse: Literature Cited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Literature Cited A-Z Aldridge, C.L. 1998. Status of the sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus urophasianus) in Alberta. Alberta Environmental Protection, Wildlife Management Division, and Alberta Conservation Association, Wildlife Status Report No. 13, Edmonton, AB. 23 pp. Aldridge, C.L. and M.S. Boyce. 2007. Linking occurrence and fitness to persistence: a habitat-based approach for endangered greater sage-grouse. Ecological Applications 17:508-526. Aldridge, C.L. and R.M. Brigham. 2003. Distribution, abundance, and status of the greater sage-grouse, Centrocercus urophasianus, in Canada. Canadian Field-Naturalist 117:25-34. Aldridge, C.L., S.E. Nielsen, H.L. Beyer, M.S. Boyce, J.W. Connelly, S.T. Knick, and M.A. Schroeder. 2008. Range-wide patterns of greater sage-grouse persistence. Diversity and Distributions 14:983–994. Aldridge, C. L., D. J. Saher, T. M. Childers, K. E. Stahlnecker, and Z. H. Bowen. 2011. Critical nesting habitat for Gunnison sage-grouse: a spatially explicit hierarchical approach. Journal of Wildlife Management 9999:1-16. American Ornithologist’s Union. 2000. Forty-second supplement to the American Ornithologist’s Union checklist of North American birds. Auk 117:847-858. Barber, H.A. 1991. Strutting behavior, distribution and habitat selection of sage grouse in Utah. M.S. Thesis, Brigham Young Universtity, Provo, Utah. ................ U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2009. Cumulative dead bird infections by county – Colorado, 2009. [http://diseasemaps.usgs.gov/wnv_co_bird.html]. Accessed January 30, 2010. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2010. Golden eagle Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) summer distribution map 1994-2003. [http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/htm03/ra2003_blue/ra03490.htm]. Accessed June 8, 2010. Utah Department of Agriculture. 2010. Utah noxious weed list. [http://ag/Utah.gov/divisions/plant/noxious/documents/noxutah.pdf]. Accessed July 24, 2010. Utah Department of Agriculture. 2010a. County declared noxious weeds in Utah. [http://ag.utah.gov/divisions/plant/noxious/documents/noxcounty.pdf]. Accessed July 24, 2010. Federal Register Citations: 59 FR 34272. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Interagency Cooperative Policy for Endangered Species Act Section 9 Prohibitions. July 1, 1994. 64 FR 32726. Safe Harbors and Candidate Conservation Agreements with Assurances Permit Regulations. June 17, 1999. 65 FR 82310. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Notice of Designation of the Gunnison Sage Grouse as a Candidate Species. December 28, 2000. 66 FR 28357. Executive Order 13212, Actions to Expedite Energy-Related Projects. May 22, 2001.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.007 |
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".