Bibliographic record
Abstract
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-
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.171 | 0.008 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".