ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF THE MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING REGULATIONS FOR THE 2007-2008 SEASON A partial update of the 2004 Economic Analysis Prepared by:
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this economic analysis is to determine the economic effects of Federal regulatory alternatives for the 2007-2008 hunting season for migratory birds. This analysis centers on changing daily bag limits and season lengths, the two most important policy variables in the Federal framework. The analysis will show that differences in those key variables between alternatives result in measurable changes in the number of hunters, how often they hunt, and the amount of consumer surplus they enjoy as well as the amount of money they spend in pursuit of their sport. There are two components to this analysis: first, each of the regulatory alternatives will be evaluated for their effects on consumer surplus and second, each alternative will be evaluated for their effects on hunter expenditures. The results of this analysis will document the economic effects of the final framework for the 2007-2008 Fall migratory bird hunting season. Migratory birds are a renewable, international, common property resource. Each consumer has an incentive to take as much of the resource as they can capture, so all consumers together can overexploit the resource. This type of market failure is termed an externality in that the actions of one party impose costs on others that cannot be captured by a market transaction. Over harvesting at the turn of the century resulted in depleted bird populations and inspired the Migratory Bird Treaties between the United States, Great Britain (Canada), Mexico, Japan, and the Soviet Union. The Act implementing the treaties authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish national frameworks within which States may establish migratory bird hunting regulations. The status of migratory bird populations are discussed in a series of annual reports available at
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".