Trends in Duck Breeding\nPopulations, 1955-2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".