Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discussion •FAA Guidance on WHAs •FAA and USDA Relationship •USDA Competition vs Private Sector •Airport Wildlife - Canada vs USA •Case Histories: Inconsistencies in WHA Contracting •Questions and Comments Thesis Statement •USDA has long enjoyed a sole-source monopoly with the FAA for airport wildlife work, including WHAs and Control •Despite guidelines ostensibly created to enhance opportunity for Private Sector, this USDA monopoly largely persists •USDA WS functions as private enterprise and illegally competes for federal contract dollars The FAA requires airfields handling commercial aircraft to address wildlife hazards if a real or potential wildlife problem is present (FAR Part 139). AC 150/5200-36 The Guiding Light of Airport Wildlife Work •Authored by Ed Cleary, career USDA (1974-78, 84-95), joined FAA (1995-2006) then retired. Private Sector consultant today. •Issued 2006, Revised as 36A July 2011 •AC = Apparent Conundrum •Allows for one to conduct WHA only if prior WHA experience OR if working under “mentor” who has that experience Mentorship and Training •Opportunity for ex-USDA to have hand in the WHA pie even if not primary contractor •Adds $15-25,000 to budget for a non-QAWB •More oversight and scrutiny with 36A •Is this now a negative from airport perspective??? •More reqs for training airport personnel AC 150/5200-36A •In 2006 when issued ONLY USDA (+ mil) personnel had requisite WHA experience •Clearly favors USDA or former USDA •Test: Is there similar AC-level guidance for other safe airfield operations professionals and/or staff? •NO! Just for Bird Counters that might infringe upon USDA's $$ Monopoly Professional Standards •Airport Engineers? •Airport Architects? •Airport Directors? •Airport Operations Managers? Are they under the same microscope as Bird Counting Biologists? NO!
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.077 | 0.004 |
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".