MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2558667866 · doi:10.1002/wsb.719

Modifying M‐44s to reduce risk of activation by swift fox

2016· article· en· W2558667866 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie K. Young

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Society Bulletin · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulpesGeographyWildlifeCartographyBiologyEcologyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT M‐44s are spring‐powered sodium cyanide ejectors commonly used in the United States to manage livestock depredation by coyotes ( Canis latrans ). While highly selective for canids, improvements could reduce risk to nontarget canids, especially State‐Endangered or ‐Threatened canids such as the swift fox ( Vulpes velox ). In 2012–2013, we tested M‐44s set at modified heights to determine whether height modifications reduced risk to swift foxes without reducing activation rates by coyotes. We presented captive coyotes housed at the USDA National Wildlife Research Center's Predator Research Facility, Millville, Utah, USA, with M‐44s at various test heights to determine a height that would still ensure activation and then M‐44s set at 15‐cm height were placed in pens with captive swift foxes at the Cochrane Ecological Institute, near Cochrane, Alberta, Canada, to evaluate their ability to activate M‐44s. M‐44s were next set in the field as 31 matched pairs within North Dakota, USA. For each matched pair, 1 was set at standard height, where the body of the device was entirely below ground level and only the mouth piece was above ground, and 1 at a modified height, where the top of the mouth pieces was set 15–18 cm above ground level. Camera traps were used to monitor wildlife activity at M‐44s. Despite equivalent visitation rates based on camera‐trap data, only one modified M‐44 was activated by a coyote, whereas 19 M‐44s set at standard height were activated by coyotes. No swift foxes were observed during field trials, but red foxes ( V. vulpes ) were observed at 2 sets and did not activate the M‐44s. Modifying the height of M‐44s appears to reduce activation risk for nontarget canids, but also reduces the rate of activation by coyotes. Thus, height modifications to M‐44s may not be practical or efficient in areas with little or no risk to nontarget canids because of compromised coyote activation rates, but should be considered as an option to enable use of M‐44s for coyote management in areas where M‐44s are not currently used because nontarget, small canids may co‐occur. Published 2016. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife Society BulletinSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207