MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060261637 · doi:10.1017/s0959270905000110

Priority contribution. Role of international conventions in promoting avian conservation through reduced lead toxicosis: progression towards a non-toxic agenda

2005· article· en· W2060261637 on OpenAlexaff
Vernon G. Thomas, Raimón Guitart

Bibliographic record

VenueBird Conservation International · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Conservation and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConventionShot (pellet)Environmental protectionLead poisoningGeographyLead (geology)HabitatEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceEcologyLawBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transition to the use of non-toxic shot and fishing weights has been slow at the international level despite the Bern Convention and the African Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) having called for a ban on lead shot use by the year 2000. Adopting lead substitutes is also consistent with the habitat goals of the Ramsar Convention and the Biodiversity Convention. In countries where non-toxic shot and sinkers are required by law, published studies show a marked reduction in lead toxicosis and large savings of birds. A renewed commitment from the AEWA, the Bern Convention, and especially the Ramsar Convention is needed to encourage their parties to regulate the use of non-toxic materials. Eleven different non-toxic substitutes for shot now exist, and some of these can also serve as substitutes for lead sinkers. While previous regulatory emphasis has been placed on wetland habitats, any new initiatives could also propose a phasing out of lead shot in upland habitats to reduce the prevalence of secondary lead poisoning of migratory raptors.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0130.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.013

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBird Conservation InternationalSame topicEnvironmental Conservation and ManagementFrench-language works237,207