Usefulness of funnel traps in catching small reptiles and mammals, with comments on the effectiveness of the alternatives
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Funnel traps were used in conjunction with pit traps (PVC buckets and pipes), Elliott traps and cage traps at 10 sites in southern Western Australia to examine sampling bias of trap types. Funnel traps seldom catch small mammals but catch more of the medium-sized and large terrestrial, diurnal snakes and some of the widely foraging, medium-sized skinks, medium-sized dragon lizards and arboreal geckos that climb out of PVC pit traps. For pit traps, buckets catch more reptiles, particularly smaller ones, than pipes. However, pipes catch more mammals than buckets. Elliott traps catch the same suite of small mammals as pipes plus some of the large, trappable species, such as Rattus spp. Cage traps are useful for trapping Tiliqua spp. and medium-sized mammals such as possums and bandicoots that are unlikely to be caught in pit and funnel traps. Funnel traps, pit traps and cage traps should be used in surveys of small terrestrial vertebrates to determine species richness and relative abundance in Western Australia and probably elsewhere. However, as cage traps are mostly useful for catching Tiliqua spp. and medium-sized mammals, they need only be used in faunal surveys undertaken for environmental impact assessments specifically targeting these 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it