MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2291265006 · doi:10.1002/ps.4270

A historical perspective on the effects of trapping and controlling the muskrat (<i>Ondatra zibethicus</i>) in the Netherlands

2016· article· en· W2291265006 on OpenAlexaff
E. Emiel van Loon, Daan Bos, Caspara J van Hellenberg Hubar, Ron Ydenberg

Bibliographic record

VenuePest Management Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)BiologyEcologyGeographyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The muskrat is considered to be a pest species in the Netherlands, and a year-round control programme is in effect. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this programme using historical data on catch and effort collected at a provincial scale. RESULTS: The development of the catch differed between provinces, depending on the year of colonisation by muskrat and the investment of effort (measured as field hours). The catch did not peak in the same year for the various provinces, and provinces that were colonised earlier in time took longer to attain the peak catch. Trapping resulted in declining populations, but only after a certain threshold of annual effort in trapping had been surpassed. On average, populations were observed to decline when the annual effort exceeded 1.4 field hours per km of waterway for several successive years. Having reached a phase of greater control, control organisations tended to reduce effort. CONCLUSION: We conclude that control measures can make muskrat populations decline, provided that the effort is commensurate with the population size. Our study emphasises that experimentation is needed to confirm the causality of the findings, to establish the relation with damage or safety risk and to derive an optimal control strategy. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.520

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePest Management ScienceSame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207