MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884005247 · doi:10.1071/wr17155

The use of point-of-view cameras (Kittycams) to quantify predation by colony cats (Felis catus) on wildlife

2018· article· en· W2884005247 on OpenAlexaff
Sonia M. Hernández, Kerrie Anne T. Loyd, Alexandra N. Newton, Benjamin L. Carswell, Kyler Abernathy

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsIsland Health
FundersAmerican Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
KeywordsPredationWildlifeFelis catusBiodiversityEcologyBiologyHabitatContext (archaeology)Wildlife conservationCamera trapInvertebrateApex predatorFisheryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context Domestic cats (Felis catus) are efficient and abundant non-native predators, recently labelled as primary contributors to global biodiversity loss. Aims Specific research goals included determining the proportion of hunters, estimating hunting efficiency, identifying primary prey and examining predictors of kill rate and efficacy. Methods We investigated hunting of wildlife by stray cats living in managed outdoor colonies on a barrier island in the southeastern USA, and monitored 29 stray cats seasonally in 2014 and 2015 using Kittycam video cameras. Key results In total, 24 cats exhibited hunting behaviour and 18 captured prey. The estimated average daily predation rate from these successful hunters was 6.15 kills per 24-h period. Hunting effectiveness (percentage of capture attempts that translate to a kill) was an average of 44%. The most common type of prey captured was invertebrate (primarily Orthopteran and Hemipteran insects), followed by amphibians and reptiles. Eighty-three percent of kills occurred between dusk and dawn. Conclusions Colony location (near undeveloped island habitat) was related to higher kill rates. Cat sex and nocturnal hunting activity were related to greater hunting efficiency. Implications These results address the significant gap in knowledge about stray cat hunting activities, and raise conservation concerns for some groups of organisms (reptiles and amphibians) that have not been widely identified as vulnerable to cat predation.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 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

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife ResearchSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207