MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107670116 · doi:10.1002/wsb.392

A safer net propelled device to capture wild turkey

2014· article· en· W2107670116 on OpenAlexafffund
Maxime Lavoie, Pierre Blanchette, Jean‐Pierre Tremblay, Serge Larivière

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicTurtle Biology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsSAFERRocket (weapon)Explosive materialNet (polyhedron)WildlifeMeleagris gallopavoEnvironmental scienceBiologyAeronauticsComputer scienceAnimal scienceGeographyEcologyMathematicsEngineeringComputer securityArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT We compared 2 net‐propelled devices to capture eastern wild turkeys ( Meleagris gallopavo silvestris ). One device, the rocket‐net, employs explosives for propulsion and is currently the most effective and widespread method used to capture this species. The second device, the net blaster, works with compressed air instead of explosives. During 2009–2012, we captured 344 wild turkeys using rocket‐nets ( n = 30 attempts) and net blasters ( n = 15 attempts). Both devices had a similar capture success rate; but malfunctioning was twice as common with the rocket‐net as with the net blaster, as was the rate of injuries to captured wild turkeys. However, rocket‐nets did not have a higher rate of capture‐related mortality. The net blaster was more difficult to handle, more expensive, and did not work when temperatures were below −20°C. Overall the net blaster proved to be more efficient capturing wild turkeys and was safer than the rocket‐net. © 2014 The Wildlife Society.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient 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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.007

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations3
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicTurtle Biology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207