MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099913578 · doi:10.20506/rst.21.1.1326

Disease management strategies for wildlife

2002· review· fr· W2099913578 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue Scientifique et Technique de l OIE · 2002
Typereview
Languagefr
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCullingDiseaseWildlifePopulationDisease managementWildlife diseaseBiologyMedicineEnvironmental healthEcologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three basic forms of management strategies exist for wildlife disease, as follows: prevention of introduction of disease, control of existing disease or eradication. Management may be directed at the disease agent, host population, habitat or be focused on human activities. Disease agents may be dealt with in the environment through disinfection or in the host through treatment. Disinfection and pesticides used to destroy agents or vectors are limited to local situations, may have serious environmental effects and may result in acquired resistance. Difficulty in delivering treatment limits chemotherapy to local situations. Host populations may be managed by immunisation, by altering their distribution or density, or by extirpation. Immunisation is best suited for microparasitic exogenous infections with a low reproductive rate and in populations which have a low turnover. Mass immunisation with oral baits has been effective, but this strategy is limited to a few serious diseases. It is difficult to move wild animals and techniques to discourage animals from entering an area become ineffective rapidly. The setting up of fences is feasible only in local situations. Selective culling is limited to situations in which affected individuals are readily identifiable. General population reduction has had little success in disease control but reducing populations surrounding a focus or creating a barrier to disease movement have been successful. Population reduction is a temporary measure. Eradication of a wildlife population has not been attempted for disease management. Habitat modification may be used to reduce exposure to disease agents, or to alter host distribution or density. Management of diseases of wild animals usually requires a change in human activities. The most important method is by restricting translocation of wild animals to prevent movement of disease.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.285 · 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