MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Peer Review #2 of "Low-stress livestock handling protects cattle in a five-predator habitat (v0.1)"

2023· peer-review· en· W4320921964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPredatorLivestockHabitatEnvironmental scienceAnimal scienceEcologyBiologyPredation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the ecological importance of top predators, societies are turning to non-lethal methods for coexistence.Coexistence is challenging when livestock graze within wild predator habitats.We report a randomized, controlled experiment to evaluate low-stress livestock handling (L-SLH), a form of range riding, to deter grizzly (brown) bears, gray wolves, cougars, black bears, and coyotes in Southwestern Alberta.The treatment condition was supervision by two newly hired and trained range riders and an experienced L-SLH-practicing range rider.This treatment was compared against a baseline pseudocontrol condition of the experienced range rider working alone.Cattle experienced zero injuries or deaths in either condition.We infer that inexperienced range riders trained and supervised by an experienced rider did not raise or lower the risk to cattle.Also, predators did not shift to the cattle herds protected by fewer range riders.We found a correlation suggesting grizzly bears avoided herds visited more frequently by range riders practicing L-SLH.More research is required to compare different forms of range riding.However, pending experimental evaluation of other designs, we recommend use of L-SLH.We discuss cobenefits of this husbandry method.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMetaresearch
Domain: Evaluation · Genre: Other
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3310.168

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Metaresearch

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreOther · Commentary

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies→CategoryMetaresearch→French-language works237,207→