MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2956812572

Capturing problematic urban Canada geese in Reno, Nevada: Goose roundups vs. use of alpha-chloralose

2004· article· en· W2956812572 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mike A. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect and Pesticide Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUtah State UniversityU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsGooseWildlifePopulationGeographyRelocationBeggingBusinessEcologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthBiologyLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban Canada geese, in large numbers, have exploited human manipulation of the Reno, Nevada cityscape, creating human health and safety concerns along with monetary losses to businesses and private citizens. A primary concern from the start has been the potential for an aircraft-bird strike at the Reno-Tahoe International Airport. To address this urban goose problem, USDA APHIS Wildlife Services (WS) “rounds up” the problem geese by use of a funnel trap, where a gathering cage is placed at the junction of two plastic fence wings. Goose roundups occur on golf courses, city parks, and private residences. The use of the traps can be labor intensive on some properties, often requiring the coordination of federal, state, and city employees in addition to volunteers, to assure adequate personnel are available. A goose roundup is generally a high-profile public affair. WS makes every effort to start roundups early in the morning (4:00-4:30 A.M.) to avoid crowds, and more importantly, to reduce heat stress to the geese. However, there always seem to be a few citizens observing the operation. For many people, the sight of 20 to 30 geese enclosed in a small cage, honking and hissing, and potentially trampling goslings under foot, can be quite upsetting. Many urbanites only encounter Canada geese at the city park, where they typically enjoy feeding the local population. This limited exposure often results in negative reactions to goose capture and relocation efforts. To reduce the need for high-profile roundups in urban areas, WS experimented with the use of alpha-chloralose (AC) on urban geese located in select parks and gated communities. Alpha-chloralose is an avian tranquilizer that is administered orally to waterfowl through corn or bread bait. We hoped that the use of AC would change public opinion about the stress the geese might suffer during capture efforts. Further, we sought to capture repeat offending geese that had become wise to the funnel trap and avoided capture by that method. Since many properties are not suitable for funnel trap use, we wished to expand the WS urban goose management effort by employing this additional capture method. AC delivery by bread baits allowed for the precise targeting of problem geese. The advantages and disadvantages of both roundups and AC treatments are discussed.

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 score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.416

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)Same topicInsect and Pesticide ResearchFrench-language works237,207