MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The effect of bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis on reproduction and survival of wood bison in Wood Buffalo National Park

2005· article· en· W1554433759 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Damien O. Joly, François Messier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Ecology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Food Inspection AgencyUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsBison bisonBrucellosisNational parkReproductionBiologyPopulationMycobacterium bovisBrucella abortusTuberculosisBovine tuberculosisEcologyImmunologyMedicineMycobacterium tuberculosisEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Wood bison ( Bison bison athabascae L.) abundance in Wood Buffalo National Park, Canada, declined from an excess of 10 000 bison in the late 1960s to a low of 2200 bison in the late 1990s. Bovine tuberculosis ( Mycobacterium bovis ) and brucellosis ( Brucella abortus ), were introduced to Wood Buffalo National Park in the late 1920s. As each of these pathogens has the potential to reduce survival and reproduction in bison, they are suspected to have played a role in the decline in bison abundance. We live‐captured bison in the winters of 1997–2000, tested for tuberculosis, brucellosis and pregnancy and released animals with radio transmitters to evaluate survival. We found that bison that were positive for both diseases were less likely to be pregnant or to survive the winter than bison positive for one or neither disease. Further, in one population, bison that were tuberculosis‐positive had a substantially lower pregnancy probability. Demonstrating a negative effect of diseases on survival and reproduction is a necessary, but not sufficient, test of the role of diseases in bison population decline.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations66
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal EcologySame topicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatmentFrench-language works237,207