MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2809288467 · doi:10.7717/peerj.4968

Comparative health assessment of urban and non-urban free-ranging mule deer (<i>Odocoileus hemionus</i>) in southeastern British Columbia, Canada

2018· article· en· W2809288467 on OpenAlexaffabout
Amélie Mathieu, Mark Flint, Patrick Stent, Helen Schwantje, Thomas E. Wittum

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Forests
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdocoileusGeographyForestryFisheryEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The provincial wildlife management agency, British Columbia Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, performed a translocation to control the urban mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus ; uMD) overpopulation and supplement the declining non-urban mule deer (nuMD) population in the Kootenay region, British Columbia, Canada. The objectives of this cross-sectional study were to evaluate the health of the urban and nuMD populations by comparing pathogen exposure, body condition scores (BCS) and pregnancy rates, to characterize the health risks associated with the translocation and to investigate the role of infectious diseases in the decline of the nuMD deer population. Methods Two hundred free-ranging mule deer were captured in urban and non-urban environments in the Kootenay region from 2014 to 2017. BCS and morphometric examinations were performed for each deer. Blood samples collected from each deer were tested for exposure to selected pathogens and pregnancy status. Results Body condition scores averaged 3.4 on a five-point scale, was greater in nuMD, and significantly differed between years. Antibodies were detected for adenovirus hemorrhagic disease virus (38.4% (uMD 43.7%, nuMD 33.3%)), bluetongue virus (0.6% (uMD 1.2%, nuMD 0%)), bovine respiratory syncytial virus (8.4% (uMD 4.6%, nuMD 12.1%)), bovine viral diarrhea virus (1.1% (uMD 0%, nuMD 2.2%)), bovine parainfluenza-3 virus (27.0% (uMD 27.6%, nuMD 26.4%)), Neospora caninum (22.1% (uMD 24.4%, nuMD 19.7%)) and Toxoplasma gondii (8.2% (uMD 12.3%, nuMD 3.9%)). No antibodies against epizootic hemorrhagic disease virus were detected. Pregnancy rates did not differ between the two deer populations (90.7% (uMD 90.6%, nuMD 90.9%)). Exposure to N. caninum was associated with a reduced probability of being pregnant. uMD were more likely to be exposed to T. gondii than nuMD. Discussion Comparison of BCS, pregnancy rates and pathogen exposure of uMD and nuMD showed that the health of the two populations did not significantly differ, suggesting uMD translocations do not pose a severe risk of pathogen transmission between mule deer populations and that these selected pathogens do not factor in the decline of the nuMD population. However, inclusion of additional health indicators and creation of a robust predictive disease model are warranted to further characterize the health of mule deer and the health risks associated with uMD translocations. These results should be considered as part of a formal risk assessment for future uMD translocations in southeastern British Columbia.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.457

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.237
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207