International Recovery Plan for the Whooping Crane (<em>Grus americana</em>), Third Revision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Whooping Crane Recovery Plan was prepared under the authorities of the U.S. Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the Canada Wildlife Act of 1974, and the Canadian Species at Risk Act of 2003. Decision-makers are provided with an orderly set of events that, if carried to successful completion, will change the status of this species from the Endangered to the Threatened level. The Plan describes management and research actions that are underway and proposes additional actions needed to ensure the recovery of the whooping crane. Funding levels and time schedules are estimated, and priorities have been set for each management and research action. This revision of the Whooping Crane Recovery Plan describes recovery actions and costs required for the birds and habitat in both Canada and the United States. Part I covers basic biology of the species, historical and present distribution, habitat requirements, numbers and rate of growth, biological factors limiting the population, human threats, and conservation measures. Part II states the recovery goals, strategy, objectives and criteria, provides a step-down outline of specific actions needed for recovery, and describes protective actions to alleviate threats. Part III provides an implementation schedule for recovery. Parts IV and V provide contact information and key references. Appendices C and D, respectively, address recovery actions completed or underway, and summarize responses to public comments on the draft plan. The recovery program for the whooping crane is an excellent example of international cooperation to save a species. Cooperative recovery actions of the 2 nations are outlined in a Memorandum of Understanding on the Conservation of the Whooping Crane approved in 1991 and updated at 5-year intervals. Development of this Plan by a joint Canada/U.S. Recovery Team is appropriate because the whooping crane’s recovery is dependent upon conservation and management of the species in both countries. As an international document, the Plan has a unique format to satisfy the requirements of both Canada and the United States. It was written in conjunction with 2 Canadian documents; National Recovery Strategy for the Whooping Crane (Grus americana) and Action Plan for the Whooping Crane (Johns and Stehn 2005a,b).
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.012 |
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".