AN ASSESSMENT OF INJURY TO EUROPEAN BADGERS (MELES MELES) DUE TO CAPTURE IN STOPPED RESTRAINTS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of ongoing culling operations, European badgers (Meles meles) were captured using stopped restraints in winter (October to December 2005) and summer (May to June 2006) in the Republic of Ireland. A subset of these badgers, those caught during four consecutive nights, was examined postmortem to determine the frequency and severity of physical injuries resulting from capture in the restraints. The skin and the tissues underlying the restraint of 343 badgers were assessed for injury by visual examination. There was an absence of skin damage or only minor skin abrasions in 88% of badgers; an absence of subcutaneous tissue injury or only localized subcutaneous tissue injury in 69%; and an absence of muscle injury or only slight muscle bruising in 99% of badgers. Only 2% of badgers had cuts to the skin and 5.5% had extensive subcutaneous edema, whereas 1.2% had areas of hemorrhage and tearing of the underlying muscle. Our results show that the majority of badgers examined sustained minimal injuries attributable to capture in stopped restraints.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".