MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7095136259

The Effects of Native Vegetation Buffer on the Canadian Geese Population in Vilas Park

2007· article· en· W7095136259 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuffer zoneVegetation (pathology)PopulationShoreWetlandVegetation classification
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian geese population throughout most parts of North America has increased over the years and has become a nuisance in some suburban and urban areas. There are particular problems, especially in the area of Vilas Park where there are soccer fields and playgrounds (known as zone 2 – Appendix A). As a way to minimize the number of geese and goslings that are in zone 2, the Friends of Lake Wingra and the City of Madison planted a native vegetation buffer along the shoreline of Lake Wingra in the zone 2 area. This planting took place in the early summer of 2005 and continued in 2006. In an effort to measure the effect of the native vegetation buffer on the number of geese and goslings in zone 2, we analyzed data collected by students at Edgewood College. The data include geese and gosling counts taken over the past several years throughout Vilas Park. The data indicates that the native vegetation buffer has been effective in reducing the number of geese and goslings in the zone 2 area during months when the vegetation is present. It seems reasonable that the Friends of Lake Wingra and the City of Madison should expand their effort to plant the native vegetation into other zones where geese are deemed to be a nuisance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy StudiesFrench-language works237,207