Comparison of effects of different methods of culling red deer<i>(Cervus elaphus)</i>by shooting on behaviour and post mortem measurements of blood chemistry, muscle glycogen and carcase characteristics
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Methods for culling wild red deer (Cervus elaphus) were compared by observing behaviour and collecting post mortem samples from wild deer shot: (i) by a single stalker during daytime; (ii) by more than one stalker during daytime; (iii) by using a helicopter for the deployment of stalkers and carcase extraction; or (iv) by a single stalker at night, and compared with farmed red deer shot in a field or killed at a slaughterhouse. Culling by a single stalker during the day and shooting in a field were the most accurate in achieving placement of a shot in a target area, but when compared across all methods, there were no significant differences in the percentages of deer that were either wounded or appeared to have died immediately after the first shot. Plasma cortisol concentrations in deer shot using helicopter assistance were similar to those in deer at the slaughterhouse, but higher than deer shot at night or during the day by a single stalker, or in a field. Deer shot using helicopter assistance and also deer culled by a collaborative and single stalking during the day had lower muscle glycogen concentrations than those culled by a single stalker at night. There was no evidence that a particular culling method was associated with an increased risk of accidental or pre-culling injury. If a helicopter is used to assist culling, the deer are more likely to be disturbed before they are shot and therefore, measures should be taken to minimise the disturbance to the deer.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it