MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7062673001

Trends in Duck Breeding\nPopulations, 1955-2009

2009· article· en· W7062673001 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty Evaluation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlTable (database)WildlifeAbundance (ecology)HabitatPopulationAerial surveyAnatidaeSpring (device)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report summarizes information about the status of duck populations and wetland habitats during spring 2010, focusing on areas encompassed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) and Canadian Wildlife Services' (CWS) Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey. We do not include information from surveys conducted by state or provincial agencies. In the traditional survey area, which includes strata 1-18, 20-50, and 75-77 (Figure 1), the total duck population estimate (excluding scoters [Melanitta spp.], eiders [Somateria spp. and Polysticta stelleri], long-tailed ducks [Clangula hyemalis], mergansers [Mergus spp. and Lophodytes cucullatus], and wood ducks [Aix sponsa]) 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 averagea (1955{2009; Table 1). 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 (Table 2). Estimated abundance of gadwall (A. strepera; 3.0 ± 0.2 million) was similar to the 2009 estimate and 67% above the long-term average (Table 3). Estimated abundance of American wigeon (A. americana; 2.4 ± 0.1 million) was similar to 2009 and the long-term average (Table 4). 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 long-term average of 1.9 ± 0.2 million (Table 5). 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 ± 0.4 million (Table 6). 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 ± 0.4 million (Table 7). 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 (Tables 8 and 9). The canvasback estimate (A. valisineria; 0.6 ± 0.05 million) was similar the 2009 estimate and to the long-term average (Table 10). 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 (Table 11).

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.500
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.331
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.113 · 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.

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicScientific Measurement and Uncertainty EvaluationFrench-language works237,207