Use of overhead wires to deter\nwaterfowl from sewage treatment\nponds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deterring birds from water on or near airports is an important part of a bird strike reduction program. Overhead wires of various materials and in a variety of patterns can reduce bird use of specific areas. It has been suggested that widely spaced wires can be as effective as narrowly spaced wires and therefore more economical due to decreased material and initial labor costs. However, when a 50-foot design was placed over waste-water ponds in North Carolina, the total number of waterfowl using the ponds increased when compared to the year prior to placement of the wires. Canada goose numbers declined, whereas mallard, ringnecked duck and ruddy duck numbers increased. It is possible that waterfowl using the wired areas perceived the overhead grids as protection from avian predators. Also, the ponds may have provided refuge from hunting since no hunting was allowed at this location. An integrated bird hazing approach is therefore necessary at these overhead wire locations and we anticipate that hazing would be required at other overhead wire locations as well.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.005 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".