Captive Canada Geese Acceptability and Toxicity Trials with Two Formulations of 0.005% Diphacinone Rodenticide Baits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 0.005% diphacinone rodenticide pellets used in this study have been proposed for use in field applications to control introduced rodents on conservation lands in the state of Hawaii. Introduced rodents (especially Rattus spp.) cause a wide array of conservation problems in the Hawaiian Islands and on other islands. We assessed the acceptability and toxicity (should the pellets be consumed) of two rodenticide baits to Canada geese, a surrogate species for the endangered Hawaiian goose. Based on these trials with captive, wild Canada geese, it appears that neither the whole nor the chopped (to simulate broken or weathered baits) pellets pose a significant risk to the Hawaiian goose, a species considerably smaller than the Canada goose. The pellets (whole or chopped) were not accepted by the Canada geese during this study despite their having only a small amount of green grass sod as an alternative food. There were no mortalities of geese during the feeding trials and all geese remained healthy, based on body weights and packed blood cell volumes. The endangered status of the Hawaiian goose precluded using it as the target study species.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".