MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007508038 · doi:10.22621/cfn.v133i3.2279

Do turtle warning signs reduce roadkill?

2020· article· en· W3007508038 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
David C. Seburn, Hannah McCurdy-Adams

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsCanadian Wildlife Federation
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaCanadian Wildlife Federation
KeywordsWarning signsWildlifeTurtle (robot)Warning systemFencingFisheryGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyComputer scienceEngineeringTransport engineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Roadkill is a serious threat for many species of freshwater turtles. One of the most common road mitigation tools is wildlife warning signs to alert drivers. These warning signs have commonly been used for large mammals, although there is little evidence that they are effective in reducing roadkill. We tested the effectiveness of turtle warning signs at four known roadkill hotspots along a provincial highway in eastern Ontario and compared the results with four control sites on a nearby major road in a before-after-control-impact (BACI) study. We found 30 dead turtles in the four hotspots in 2017 before the signs were installed and 27 in 2018 after the signs were installed. The number of turtles killed on the road after the signs were installed did not change significantly (χ21 = 1.1, P > 0.2). Although turtle warning signs may alert some drivers, they should not be considered a replacement for more effective road mitigation tools, such as wildlife fencing and crossing structures.

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)0.004
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations7
Published2020
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207