MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235837505 · doi:10.31235/osf.io/k473n

Attitudes of Rural Canadians toward Invasive Wild Pigs

2019· preprint· en· W4235837505 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mackenzie Clarke, Ryan K. Brook

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildlifeGeographySocioeconomicsLivestockRural areaAgricultureWild boarEnvironmental protectionEcologyBiologyArchaeologyForestryMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasive wild pigs (Sus scrofa) are now the most widely distributed wild large mammal in the world and they cause dramatic impacts on agriculture and the environment. Wild pigs were first introduced to the Canadian prairies in the 1980s and are now present in all Canadian provinces except those in the farthest east in Atlantic Canada (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador). A telephone survey was conducted with 3007 rural Canadians in all ten provinces in order to quantify the level of awareness and concern regarding invasive wild pig impacts in their province. Rural Canadians have overall low awareness of the presence of wild pigs in their region. As expected, awareness of wild pigs was lowest in provinces where they were absent or rare (<10% of respondents aware in British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada), low in the two provinces where wild pigs are well established and relatively widespread in rural areas (22% of respondents aware in Alberta and Manitoba), and moderate awareness in the one province with by far the most expansive distribution of wild pigs (42% of respondents aware in Saskatchewan). In Atlantic Canada where there are no known wild pigs, 2% of respondents incorrectly indicated that they were aware of their presence. Concerns regarding impacts were overall moderate to low, with no province having a mean concern level ≥ 7 out of 10) for crop damage, livestock predation and harassment, structural damage, environmental impacts, threats to native wildlife, disease transmission to humans, or disease transmission to wildlife and livestock, and threats to human safety and well-being. Since rural Canadians experience the direct and indirect impacts from invasive wild pigs, our findings will inform management efforts and help to effectively engage rural Canadians in this rapidly emerging crisis. Communication and collaboration efforts through a range of conventional and social media are needed to help inform rural Canadians about the presence of wild pigs and the associated risks and impacts. Our findings help explain the overall very low effort in most of Canada to develop management strategies and implement control efforts.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

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 studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.205 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnimal Disease Management and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207