MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362671283 · doi:10.1111/acv.12870

Galapagos giant tortoise trafficking case demonstrates the utility and applications of long‐term comprehensive genetic monitoring

2023· article· en· W4362671283 on OpenAlexaff
Maud C. Quinzin, Anusha P. Bishop, Joshua M. Miller, Nikos Poulakakis, Washington Tapia, F. Torres‐Rojo, Christian Sevilla, Adalgisa Caccone

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Conservation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
FundersInstitute for Biospheric Studies, Yale University
KeywordsWildlife tradeEndangered speciesCITESThreatened speciesTortoiseWildlifeExtinction (optical mineralogy)Captive breedingEcologyGeographyBiologyZoologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Illegal Wildlife Trade (IWT) is a cause for global concern as pressure stemming from IWT threatens wild species and can even lead to extinction. Galapagos giant tortoises ( Chelonoidis sp.) are a group of threatened species protected under CITES, which forbids their import–export for international trade; however, IWT of this group persists. In this study, we describe the use of two extensive genetic repositories of mitochondrial and nuclear microsatellite markers for Galapagos giant tortoises to identify an unsuspected source of trafficked juvenile tortoises. Our genetic analyses, together with morphological and captive‐born registry data, provide evidence that the smuggled juveniles were from two breeding centers dedicated toward conservation located on the Galapagos islands of San Cristobal and Isabela. This is the first documentation of smuggled tortoises being taken from breeding centers rather than the wild. The findings from our genetic analysis provided key evidence that enabled legal investigation. This case demonstrates the importance of the comprehensive genetic characterization of Galapagos giant tortoises and the suitability of standard genetic markers for identifying the species and islands of origin of trafficked animals. We also discuss the efficacy, adequacy, and reach of existing measures against IWT. Overall, this case illustrates an important application of long‐term and comprehensive genetic repositories of endangered species and the crucial role of collaborations among academic laboratories maintaining those repositories, local practitioners responsible for species protection, and the bodies that implement and enforce antitrafficking regulations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.317

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal ConservationSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207