MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W125085187 · doi:10.5070/v424110464

Opening Remarks - Twenty-fourth Vertebrate Pest Conference

2010· article· en· W125085187 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Fagerstone Kathleen

Notice bibliographique

RevueProceedings - Vertebrate Pest Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésRegretConventionPolitical scienceHistoryLawComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

On behalf of the Vertebrate Pest Council, I would like to welcome you to the 25 Vertebrate Pest Conference. I regret that Bob Timm could not be here today. He underwent surgery recently. He is doing very well, is home, but was not able to attend the Conference. I agreed to fill in for him and present the Opening Remarks. Bob had a draft of his opening remarks already prepared, so I am relying heavily on his comments. The Vertebrate Pest Council is thrilled that the Conference is being held once again in this scenic and historically rich city of Monterey, California. This is the fourth time this Conference has been held in this location; the most recent prior Conference convened here in March 1988, some 24 years ago. We were elated to find that due to the recent economic downturn in convention business, we could contract for hotel rooms and meeting space at costs lower than we had seen during the past two decades. That is the good news. The bad news is that little did we know, when we signed the hotel contract more than 3 years ago, the city of Monterey would be designated a “resort” destination, making it difficult for many employees of federal, state, or local governments to obtain permission to actually attend a Conference here! And the budget cuts at all governmental levels have caused travel cuts that have also prevented many of our colleagues from attending. So we are doubly appreciative that those of you who have come for this educational event have found a way to be here... and we also thank the management of the Portola Hotel for their flexibility in working with us to match our facility needs and costs to the revised expectations that have accompanied holding such a Conference in this era of “doing more with less”. This Conference celebrates the 50 Anniversary of the Vertebrate Pest Conference. It was in early February 1962 in Sacramento, California that a diverse group of individuals, all of whom were involved in some manner in the management of “vertebrate pests”, came together for the first “Vertebrate Pest Control Conference”, as it was originally named. For those of you who have done the arithmetic in your head and are questioning our accuracy, please note that there were 3-year gaps between the 2, 3, and 4 Conferences, while our otherwise “normal’ interval between Conferences has been 2 years, thus resulting in the coincidence of our 25 Conference with our 50-year anniversary. (For others of you still puzzling on this relationship, rest assured that you’re in a room of kindred biologists and not a room of mathematicians.) Here’s another fact about that first 2-day Conference: the registration fee was $1.00. (So, you can see we started off as a non-profit entity, and although it may not be obvious, we remain so 50 years later.) The organizing committee for that 1 Conference, under the leadership of Dr. Walter E. “Howdy” Howard of the University of California at Davis, invited a select group of 25 knowledgeable speakers to present “how-to” type papers on the biology and control of a wide group of vertebrate pests– including commensal rodents, coyotes, opossums, pocket gophers, moles, snakes, pigeons, starlings, wolves, and many others. At the time of the 1 Conference, there were few general “how-to” references or other publications on the subject of vertebrate pest management. For example, the California Dept. of Agriculture’s Vertebrate Pest Control Handbook (Dana 1968) did not appear until half a decade later. Therefore, the organizers envisioned from the outset that the Proceedings of the 1 VP Conference would be a very useful document for managers. Through Dr. Howard’s outreach and the subsequent efforts of Dr. Philip J. Spear, Technical Director, the National Pest Control Association (NPCA), (now the “National Pest Management Association”), assumed the expense of publishing the 1 Proceedings and made this volume available throughout the United States at $3.00 each post-paid. NPCA also provided free copies to their entire national membership, representing well over 1,000 pest control companies, many of which even in 1962 conducted forhire nuisance wildlife control in urban and suburban situations. Indeed, this 391-page Proceedings substantially filled the need for a comprehensive reference on vertebrate pest control, and for many years served as the leading general how-to handbook nationwide on the subject, as well as a text for college courses. That 1 Conference in Sacramento in 1962 drew an attendance of approximately 300 persons from 16 states, plus the District of Columbia, Canada, and South Korea (Marsh 2008). Part of our continuing success has been providing this opportunity to meet in person with colleagues from both near and far to discuss, both formally and informally, topics of mutual interest and to share ideas and challenges. And those of you gathered here today can testify that even in an age of videoconferences, Skype video calls, Twitter, iPhones, digital libraries, and other instantaneous means of communication, there is no substitute for the smile, the handshake, the compliment, and the discussion that will occur this week, as well as the new friendships that will be made. At this 25 Conference we have a total of 248 attendees. Of those attendees, 24 are from 10 countries outside the U.S. These guests are identified by their name badges; please make an effort to welcome them as you encounter each other this week. But right now, will those of you who have traveled here from beyond the U.S. please stand and be recognized as I name your country: Australia (5); Canada (1); France (1); Japan (1); Mexico (3); New Zealand (5); The Philippines (1); The Russian Federation (1); South Africa (2), and The United Kingdom (2). We also have a number of students attending the Conference. Would the students please stand and be recog-

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,426
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,002
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1710,008

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,024
Tête enseignante GPT0,243
Écart entre enseignants0,219 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeExpérimental (laboratoire)
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2010
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueProceedings - Vertebrate Pest ConferenceMême sujetSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeTravaux en français237 207