MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Breeding and trade of wildlife in Santa Catarina state, Brazil

2012· article· en· W1981308101 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vanessa Villanova Kuhnen, JO Remor, R. E. M. DE LIMA

Bibliographic record

VenueBrazilian Journal of Biology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish biology, ecology, and behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsWildlifeEndangered speciesBiologyWildlife tradeWildlife conservationWildlife managementCaptive breedingConservation biologyFisheryEcologyZoologyAgroforestryHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The wildlife trade is becoming increasingly more relevant in discussions concerning conservation biology and the sustainable management of natural resources. The aim of this study was to document the trade and breeding of wildlife in Santa Catarina state, in southern Brazil. Data was collected from annual reports (1996-2008) of wildlife breeders which were sent to IBAMA. By the end of 2008, there were 79 wildlife breeders and 11 wildlife traders distributed in Santa Catarina. Commercial breeding accounted for the highest number of breeders (51%). In total, there are 213 species of wild animals bred in the state: 177 birds, 19 mammals and 17 reptiles. Of these, 48% are native to Santa Catarina, 32% occur in other Brazilian states and 20% are exotic to Brazil. Nine percent of the species bred are vulnerable or endangered. It was observed that some breeders reported breeding unauthorized species. Altogether, 93 species are bred illegally by 19 breeders. Of these species, 48 are native to Santa Catarina and three are classified as vulnerable or in danger of extinction. We hope the data presented in this paper contributes to the development of conservation strategies and conscious use of wildlife resources in Brazil.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations17
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBrazilian Journal of BiologySame topicFish biology, ecology, and behaviorFrench-language works237,207