Targeting hunter distribution based on host resource selection and kill sites to manage disease risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endemic and emerging diseases are rarely uniform in their spatial distribution or prevalence among cohorts of wildlife. Spatial models that quantify risk-driven differences in resource selection and hunter mortality of animals at fine spatial scales can assist disease management by identifying high-risk areas and individuals. We used resource selection functions (RSFs) and selection ratios (SRs) to quantify sex- and age-specific resource selection patterns of collared (n = 67) and hunter-killed (n = 796) nonmigratory elk (Cervus canadensis manitobensis) during the hunting season between 2002 and 2012, in southwestern Manitoba, Canada. Distance to protected area was the most important covariate influencing resource selection and hunter-kill sites of elk (AICw = 1.00). Collared adult males (which are most likely to be infected with bovine tuberculosis (Mycobacterium bovis) and chronic wasting disease) rarely selected for sites outside of parks during the hunting season in contrast to adult females and juvenile males. The RSFs showed selection by adult females and juvenile males to be negatively associated with landscape-level forest cover, high road density, and water cover, whereas hunter-kill sites of these cohorts were positively associated with landscape-level forest cover and increasing distance to streams and negatively associated with high road density. Local-level forest was positively associated with collared animal locations and hunter-kill sites; however, selection was stronger for collared juvenile males and hunter-killed adult females. In instances where disease infects a metapopulation and eradication is infeasible, a principle goal of management is to limit the spread of disease among infected animals. We map high-risk areas that are regularly used by potentially infectious hosts but currently underrepresented in the distribution of kill sites. We present a novel application of widely available data to target hunter distribution based on host resource selection and kill sites as a promising tool for applying selective hunting to the management of transmissible diseases in a game species.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".