MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7053445524

Whooping Crane (<i>Grus americana</i>) behavior, habitat use and wildlife watching visitation during migratory stopover at two Wildlife Management Areas in Nebraska 2015-2016

2016· article· en· W7053445524 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMagneto-Optical Properties and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
KeywordsEndangered speciesFlockWildlifeGrus (genus)Wildlife managementHabitatWildlife conservation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Whooping Crane (Grus americana) is one of the rarest bird species in the world (Harrell and Bidwell 2013). Whooping Cranes are listed as endangered by the United States and Canada under their respective Endangered Species Acts (CWS and USFWS 2007) and by the Nebraska Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act. Whooping Crane numbers in the Aransas-Wood Buffalo (AWB) flock, the only self-sustaining wild population, were estimated to be as low as 14 adults and 4 juveniles during the winter of 1938-1939 (CWS and USFWS 2007). During the winter of 2014-2015, the estimated size of the AWB flock was 308 individuals (USFWS 2015). Birds in the AWB flock migrate more than 3,500 km twice each year through the Great Plains of North America between their breeding grounds in Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada, and wintering sites in and around Aransas National Wildlife Refuge, Texas. Annually in spring and fall, usually all of the Whooping Cranes in the AWB flock migrate through Nebraska. Many birds in the AWB flock interrupt their migration and stop at sites in Nebraska where they locate nighttime roost sites, rest and feed. Migratory stopover in Nebraska is therefore an important part of their survival, conservation and recovery.

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 score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicMagneto-Optical Properties and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207