Regulations for Managing Resident Canada Goose Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ACTION: Final rule and notice of record of decision. SUMMARY: In recent years, the numbers of Canada geese that nest and/or reside predominantly within the conterminous United States (resident Canada geese) have undergone dramatic growth to levels that are increasingly coming into conflict with people and human activities and causing personal and public property damage, as well as public health concerns, in many parts of the country. In February 2002, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or ‘‘we’’) completed a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on resident Canada goose management. In August 2003, we published a proposed rule to establish regulations to implement the DEIS proposed action, Alternative F. In November 2005, the notice of availability for a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was published, followed by a 30-day public review period. This final rule sets forth regulations for implementing the FEIS preferred alternative, Alternative F, which would authorize State wildlife agencies, private landowners, and airports to conduct (or allow) indirect and/or direct population control management activities, including the take of birds, on resident Canada goose populations. The Record of Decision (ROD) is also published here. DATES: This final rule will go into effect on September 11, 2006. ADDRESSES: The public may inspect comments received on the DEIS and the proposed rule during normal business
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.024 |
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".