POSSIBLE COMPETITION BETWEEN WATERFOWL AND SANDHILL CRANES ATHIWASSEE WILDLIFE REFUGE, TENNESSEE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a result of crop planting for waterfowl, numbers of eastern greater sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis tabida) staging and overwintering at the Hiwassee Wildlife Refuge in eastern Tennessee have sharply increased over the last 30-40 years. Peak numbers of wintering cranes have reached 14,000, and this large increase in crane numbers raises the possibility that they may be competing with waterfowl for food and space. I examined broad-scale changes in waterfowl numbers using Christmas Bird Count data, as well as small-scale changes using observations of waterfowl numbers and locations in relation to cranes on individual days. Preliminary results indicate that declines in Canada goose (Branta canadensis) numbers do not seem to be related to the increase in cranes, and while numbers of other waterfowl species have not shown changes, some species tend to remain farther from shore, and hence deeper water, when there are more cranes present. Waterfowl at Hiwassee may not be able be to deposit as much fat for inclement winter weather, spring migration, or breeding. Competition between cranes and waterfowl increases the need for wildlife managers to provide more food and habitat for both cranes and waterfowl.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".