MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7062672064

Waterfowl\nPopulation Status, 2010

2010· article· en· W7062672064 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Power Generation Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbundance (ecology)PopulationAerial surveyEstimationWaterfowl
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the traditional survey area, which includes strata 1‒18, 20‒50, and 75‒77, the total duck population estimate was 40.9 ± 0.7 [SE] million birds. This estimate was similar to last year's estimate of 42.0 ± 0.7 million birds and was 21% above the long-term average (1955‒2009). Estimated mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) abundance was 8.4 ± 0.3 million birds, which was similar to the 2009 estimate of 8.5 ± 0.2 million birds and 12% above the long-term average. Estimated abundance of gadwall (A. strepera; 3.0 ± 0.2 million) was similar to the 2009 estimate and 67% above the long-term average. Estimated abundance of American wigeon (A. americana; 2.4 ± 0.1 million) was similar to 2009 and the long-term average. The estimated abundance of green-winged teal (A. crecca) was 3.5 ± 0.2 million, which was similar to the 2009 estimate and 78% above their longterm average of 1.9 ± 0.02 million. The estimate of blue-winged teal abundance (A. discors) was 6.3 ± 0.4 million, which was 14% below the 2009 estimate and 36% above their long-term average of 4.7 ± 0.04 million. The estimate for northern pintails (A. acuta; 3.5 ± 0.2 million) was similar to the 2009 estimate, and 13% below the long-term average of 4.0 ± 0.04 million. Estimates of northern shovelers (A. clypeata; 4.1 ± 0.2 million) and redheads (Aythya americana; 1.1 ± 0.1 million) were similar to their 2009 estimates and were 76% and 63% above their long-term averages of 2.3 ± 0.02 million and 0.7 ± 0.01 million, respectively. The canvasback estimate (A. valisineria; 0.6 ± 0.05 million) was similar to the 2009 estimate and to the long-term average. The scaup estimate (A. affinis and A. marila combined; 4.2 ± 0.2 million) was similar to that of 2009 and 16% below the long-term average of 5.1 ± 0.05 million. Habitat conditions during the 2010 Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey were characterized by average to below-average moisture, a mild winter, and early spring across the traditional and eastern survey areas. The total pond estimate (Prairie Canada and U.S. combined) was 6.7 ± 0.2 million. This was similar to the 2009 estimate and 34% above the long-term average (1974‒2009) of 5.0 ± 0.03 million ponds. The 2010 estimate of ponds in Prairie Canada was 3.7 ± 0.2 million. This was similar to last year's estimate (3.6 ± 0.1 million) and to the long-term average (1961‒2009; 3.4 ± 0.03 million). The 2010 pond estimate for the north central U.S. was 2.9 ± 0.1 million, which was similar to last year's estimate (2.9 ± 0.1 million) and 87% above the long-term average (1974‒2009; 1.6 ± 0.02 million). The projected mallard fall-flight index is 10.3 ± 0.9 million birds. The eastern survey area was restratifed in 2005 and is now composed of strata 51‒72. Estimates of mallards, scaup, scoters (black [Melanitta nigra], white-winged [M. fusca], and surf [M. perspicillata]), green-winged teal, American wigeon, bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), ring-necked duck (Aythya collaris), and goldeneyes (common [B. clangula] and Barrow's [B. islandica]) were all similar to their 2009 estimates and long-term averages. The merganser (red-breasted [Mergus serrator], common [M. merganser], and hooded [Lophodytes cucullatus]) estimate was 386.4 thousand, which was 15% below the 2009 estimate, and 14% below the long-term average of 450.8 thousand. The American black duck (Anas rubripes) estimate was similar to the 2009 estimate and 7% below the long-term average of 478.9 thousand.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.537
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicAdvanced Power Generation TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207