Common Gallinule Banding in Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Between 2012 and 2017, we conducted a Common Gallinule banding study to determine the feasibility of catching and banding gallinule with an airboat in Ontario, estimate how many birds could potentially be banded and subsequently encountered, calculate an index of productivity and assess whether enough data could be obtained to inform management decisions and conservation planning. We captured gallinules using dip nets and spotlights at night from an airboat. In total, we banded 440 (approximately 28%) of the 1,564 gallinules that have ever been banded in Ontario. Five of our banded birds were subsequently encountered, four within Ontario and one in Texas. We compared our data to historical banding and encounter data for gal linules in the Americas. There have been 212 encounters of banded gallinules in the Americas; 53 were banded in On tario. Thirty-seven of the encounters occurred within Ontario. The number of band encounters for gallinules is very low com pared to other gamebirds and we conclude that studies will need to integrate multiple components, such as transmitters or surveys, into their design to obtain the best available information to inform gallinule conservation and management in North America.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".