MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4388774844 · doi:10.18475/cjos.v53i2.a17

Population Density of the Small Indian Mongoose (Urva auropunctata) Across Multiple Habitat Types and Seasons in Puerto Rico

2023· article· en· W4388774844 on OpenAlexaff
Are R. Berentsen, Caroline Sauvé, Mel J. Rivera‐Rodriguez, Fabiola B. Torres-Toledo, Richard B. Chipman, Amy T. Gilbert

Bibliographic record

VenueCaribbean Journal of Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersAnimal and Plant Health Inspection ServiceU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsMongoosePopulationPopulation densityBiologyRabiesEcologyHabitatGeographyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The small Indian mongoose (Urva auropunctata) is a rabies reservoir on several Caribbean Islands including Puerto Rico. In the continental United States, oral rabies vaccination (ORV) has been used to control and locally eliminate rabies viruses targeting meso-carnivores including raccoons (Procyon lotor), grey foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), and coyotes (Canis latrans), and has more recently been proposed to mitigate and control mongoose rabies in Puerto Rico. A fundamental understanding of the population density of the target species is an important factor in planning bait application rates prior to ORV operations. In Puerto Rico, most ecological studies on mongooses have been restricted to the rainforest region in the northeastern portion of the island. We calculated population density estimates for mongooses at seven sites representing four habitat types in Puerto Rico. We marked 445 unique mongooses across 593 capture events during 12,530 trap days during 2016–2021. Mean (SE, 95% CI) population densities were greater in closed to open broadleaved evergreen forest habitat (0.79 ±0.13, 0.67–0.92 mongooses/ha) compared to grasslands (0.43 ± 0.10; 0.35–0.55 mongooses/ha), rainfed croplands (0.26 ±0.10, 0.18–0.38 mongooses/ha), and shrub/herbaceous habitat (0.19 ±0.05, 0.15–0.25 mongooses/ha). We did not detect seasonal variation in mongoose population density (0.48 [0.06; 0.35–0.62] and 0.39 [0.06; 0.27–0.50] mongooses/ha measured in the wet (May–November) and dry (December–April) seasons, respectively. Multiple ORV applications may be needed annually for adequate population immunity, particularly in habitats with high mongoose population densities and rapid population turnover.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCaribbean Journal of Science→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→