A comparison of three external transmitter attachment methods for snakes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Radiotelemetry is a widely used and informative tool in studies of animal ecology, behavior, and conservation. Over the past 50 years, many different methods have been used to outfit animals with radiotransmitters. Radiotelemetry studies on snakes typically require anesthesia and surgery to internally implant transmitters; however, internal implantation methods can increase snake mortality and infection rates, and may alter natural behaviors, thereby reducing data validity. We qualitatively compared 3 methods of external transmitter attachment (i.e., glue‐only, tape‐and‐glue, and a subdermal stitch), and compared their utility for collection of spatial data from April to November 2012 and 2013 at Magnetawan First Nation near Britt, Ontario, Canada. Transmitters attached with glue‐only and tape‐and‐glue methods fell off shortly after deployment because of environmental factors and snake shedding. Both methods also resulted in skin irritation and slightly impeded snake movements. Conversely, the subdermal stitch method was long lasting in both the field and lab, and did not cause significant skin irritation. Also, the subdermal stitch method did not affect movement or the rattlesnake's ability to rattle. Additional quantitative research is required to determine if the subdermal stitch method triggers immune responses, infections, or negatively affects snake fitness. Our results suggest that the subdermal stitch method may be a viable external attachment method for use in radiotelemetry of snakes. © 2017 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".