MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W150731725

CHEMICAL IMMOBILIZATION OF FREE-RANGING MOOSE

2003· article· en· W150731725 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jon M. Arnemo, Terry J. Kreeger, Timo Soveri

Bibliographic record

VenueAlces · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEtorphineMedetomidineKetamineXylazineAnesthesiaMedicineOpioidBiologyInternal medicineHeart rate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A wide range of drugs and drug combinations have been used to capture free-ranging moose (Alces alces). Currently, potent opioids are considered the drugs of choice for capture of free-ranging moose. Recommended doses are carfentanil at 0.01 mg/kg or etorphine at 7.5 mg/adult. Combining an opioid with a sedative drug like xylazine will increase the risk of bloat, regurgitation, and aspiration of rumen contents. Extreme toxicity for humans and lost darts are major concerns when using potent opioids under field conditions. The best non-opioid alternative is medetomidine at 40-50 mg/adult combined with ketamine at 600 mg/adult. Carfentanil, etorphine, and medetomidine- ketamine have wide safety margins in moose and the risk of severe anesthetic side effects in healthy animals is minimal. Chemical immobilization from a helicopter in winter is considered the best capture method for moose. Due to animal welfare considerations and a low therapeutic index, neuromuscular blocking agents should not be used in moose. A mortality rate greater than 2% during immobilization and a one month post capture period is not acceptable for routine moose captures. ALCES VOL. 39: 243-253 (2003)

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations40
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlcesSame topicVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaFrench-language works237,207