MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implications of Agricultural and Wildlife Policy on Management and Eradication of Bovine Tuberculosis and Brucellosis in Free‐Ranging Wood Bison of Northern Canada

2002· review· en· W2134541400 on OpenAlexaffabout
John S. Nishi, Craig Stephen, Brett Elkin

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsVancouver Coastal HealthGovernment of Northwest Territories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivestockWildlifeBrucellosisAgricultureWildlife diseaseEnvironmental planningPopulationWildlife conservationBusinessGeographyBovine tuberculosisWildlife managementLegislationEnvironmental protectionNatural resource economicsEnvironmental resource managementAgroforestryTuberculosisEnvironmental healthVeterinary medicineEcologyBiologyPolitical scienceEconomicsMedicineMycobacterium bovisForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although disease is often an important factor in the population dynamics of wild ungulates, it is largely the threat-both real and perceived-that sylvatic disease reservoirs pose to the health status of commercial livestock or game farm industry that has led governments to establish policy and legislation for disease management, trade, and movement. With respect to bovine tuberculosis and brucellosis in wildlife, policies are largely borrowed from the existing regulatory framework for domestic livestock. In this paper, we review how general policy goals for managing these reportable diseases in domestic livestock have also affected conservation and management of bison in Canada. We argue that there is a need to better integrate conservation biology with agricultural livestock policy to develop management options and better address the unique conservation challenges that diseased free-ranging bison populations present.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicAnimal Disease Management and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207