MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7153700781

North Florida Sandhill Crane Populations

2024· article· W7153700781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida) · 2024
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSandhillPeninsulaSwampPopulationSubspeciesWildlifeWaterfowl
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SANDHILL CRANES (Grus canadensis) occur regularly on several prairies, lake margins, and marshes in northern Florida, but to our knowledge no previous attempt has been made to determine the size, source, and subspecies of these populations.This paper reports recent data on migration time and routes and the nesting and wintering grounds of the Sandhill Crane populations in northern Florida.METHODS AND MATERIALS Between 1963 and 1971 we visited all localities in Florida north of Marion County and east of the Aucilla River (Figure 1) where Sandhill Cranes were known or believed to occur.From 1968 through 1971 these places were rechecked by airplane, surface vehicle, or on foot.We visited Pinhook Swamp (a part of the Okefenokee Swamp) only during 1963 and 1964 in connection with another study.We did not census west of the Aucilla River because cranes are rare there (Howell, 1932; Weston, 1965), nor did we survey the Florida peninsula south of Alachua County because the species nests so widely there that the land area to be searched would necessitate a study of greater scope than we were able to undertake.We obtained some unpublished information (H.M. Stevenson and R. L. Thompson, pers.comm.) on a small population in Liberty County near Sumatra.Capturing and marking.--In the winter of 1967-68, 24 cranes captured on Orange Grove Lake Prairie and 26 captured on Paynes Prairie were tagged with light green patagial tags (KnowIron et al., 1964), banded with size 8 or 9 standard U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bands above the distal joint of the tibia, and released at the capture sites.In the winters of 1968-69 and 1969-70, 119 more cranes were banded and colormarked on Paynes Prairie, for a total of 169 wing-marked and banded for this study.Cranes were caught by a technique similar to that used to take wild Turkeys (Meleagrls gallopavo) (Williams, 1966).On prebaited sites they were fed whole yellow corn (maize) dampened and dusted with powdered alpha-chloralose at dosage rates between 0.35 and 1.50 g per standard cup of bait.The most effective dosage was 0.40 to 0.45 g of the drug per cup of corn.Narcotized cranes were held in large cardboard boxes or in burlap feed sacks with their legs securely taped together at the distal end of the tarsometatarsus.They were released at the capture sites after they recovered, usually the day after capture, but a few heavily drugged birds slept for 2 days.Sightings and recoveries of marked cranes.--Wealerted potential observers to watch for color-marked cranes and sent letters explaining the study to state and federal conservation agencies and private individuals in the eastern and midwestern United States and Canadian provinces where Sandhill Cranes were known (Walkinshaw, 1949) to nest or occur in migration.Reports of 160 sightings of marked cranes north of Florida have been received and four bands have been recovered as this is being written (April 1971).About 60 other cranes wearing bands on the lower tibia were reported in the same areas that colormarked birds were seen and probably also refer to our birds, but only reports of green color-marked cranes are used in this report (Tables 1 and 2).Four bands were recovered through the facilities of the Bird Banding Office, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.170 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDigital Commons - University of South Florida (University of South Florida)Same topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207