Hygiene at winter bird feeders in a southwestern Ontario city.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To further understand the source of the epidemic of salmonellosis in some species of birds using bird feeders in southern Ontario in the winter of 1997-1998, 124 bird feeder stations were examined for their state of hygiene and for Salmonella on 5 occasions during the winter of 1999 in a city of 100,000 people in southwestern Ontario. No Salmonella were isolated from feed contaminated with feces recovered from the feeders. Squirrel-proof feeders were significantly less contaminated with feces than were other feeder types (hopper, platform, silo), which did not differ significantly in their hygiene scores. Contamination of squirrel-proof feeders increased significantly through the course of the study, but other feeder types showed no significant change. Hygiene was poorer if feeders were maintained equally by both male and female household members, particularly as they grew older, but no age or gender effect was observed if only one person was largely responsible for maintaining the feeders. We concluded that winter bird feeder stations in a southern Ontario city were not contaminated with Salmonella but that bird feeder stations could be designed better to reduce fecal contamination of feed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".