Evaluation of the enteric microflora of captive whooping cranes (<i>Grus americana</i>) and sandhill cranes (<i>Grus canadensis</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The enteric flora of captive whooping cranes (Grus americana) and sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) has not been well described, despite its potential importance in the understanding of both the normal condition of the intestinal physiology of these animals and the altered colonization within disease states in these birds. Nineteen whooping cranes and 23 sandhill cranes housed currently at the Calgary Zoo or its affiliated Devonian Wildlife Conservation Centre (DWCC) in Calgary, Alberta were sampled from October 2004-February 2005 by collecting aerobic and anaerobic cloacal swabs from each bird. There were seven major groupings of bacteria isolated from both species of crane. Gram-positive cocci, coliforms, and gram-negative bacilli were the most prevalent types of bacteria isolated for both crane species, with Escherichia coli, Enterococcus faecalis, and Streptococcus Group D, not Enterococcus the bacterial species isolated most commonly. There was a significant difference in the average number of isolates per individual between the two crane species but no differences between age or gender categories within crane species. Campylobacter sp. were isolated from five whooping cranes. The potential zoonotic pathogen Campylobacter jejuni was isolated from one whooping crane and C. upsaliensis was isolated from a second. Three other isolates were unspeciated members of the Campylobacter genus and likely belong to a species undescribed previously. The evaluation of the enteric cloacal flora of whooping cranes and sandhill cranes illustrates that differences exist between these two closely related crane species, and highlights the potential implications these differences may have for current practices involving captive wildlife. Zoo Biol 0:1-13, 2007. (c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".