MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7162609859

An Evaluation of Duck Traps during Summer Duck Banding Operations in Western Canada

2006· article· W7162609859 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rocco J.D. Murano

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen PRAIRIE (South Dakota State University) · 2006
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAvian ecology and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaterfowlTrap (plumbing)SeasonalityOverwinteringCamera trapWetland
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Banding data is a vital source of biological information used in management of North American waterfowl populations. These data are used to determine migration routes, sex and age ratios, mortality rates and regional hunting pressure. This project evaluated variables associated with duck banding including trap style, site selection, weather interactions, and capture stress of trapped ducks associated with different trap styles. Sampling for this project was conducted as part of the United States/Canada Cooperative Waterfowl Banding Program. The Western Canadian Banding Program consists of 16 banding locations in 3 Canadian provinces and the Northwest Territories. The area near Medicine Hat, Alberta provides permanent water in Murray and Seven Persons reservoirs. These lakes are located approximately 40.25 km southwest of Medicine Hat, directly south of Seven Persons, Alberta. During the 2002 field season, 3 trap designs (Benning II, cloverleaf, and star) were tested over 386 trap days. I captured 10,966 ducks and 4,768 were banded with 6,230 recaptures of previously banded ducks in 2002. The effect of trap style on capture rates was significant in 2002 (P< 0.01). Three trap styles (Benning II, large cloverleaf, and oval with lead) were tested during the 2003 field season. I captured 10,849 ducks and 5,347 ducks were banded over 3 72 trap days during the 2003 field season while 5,502 ducks were recaptured in 2003. The effect of trap style on duck capture rates was significant in 2003 (P< 0.01 ). Oval traps with 6-m lead panels had the highest capture rate (48.5) ducks per trap day, a rate higher than capture rates of Benning II and cloverleaf traps. During 2004, 3 trap styles (Benning II, oval with lead, oval without lead) were tested. I captured 11,737 ducks and banded 5,292 ducks with 6,445 recaptured during 228 trap-days. The effect of trap style was highly significant in 2004 (P< 0.0 1 ). Oval traps with 6-m lead panels caught significantly more ducks than either oval trap without lead panels or Benning II traps. Over 3 field seasons, significant differences in capture rates between trap designs were evident. Star and cloverleaf trap designs were not effective at capturing ducks during the first 2 field seasons. Benning II box traps were reasonably effective during all 3 field seasons. Oval traps with 6-m lead panels were most effective for capturing ducks in southern Alberta during the second and third field seasons. Using oval traps with lead panels will significantly increase duck capture for banding operations in western Canada without increasing stress or mortality to captured ducks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen PRAIRIE (South Dakota State University)Same topicAvian ecology and behaviorFrench-language works237,207