MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389613280 · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-42766-6

A global synthesis and assessment of free-ranging domestic cat diet

2023· article· en· W4389613280 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher A. Lepczyk, Jean Fantle‐Lepczyk, Kylee D. Dunham, Elsa Bonnaud, Jocelyn Lindner, Tim S. Doherty, John C. Z. Woinarski

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCATSGeneralist and specialist speciesPredationFeral catBiologyBiodiversityFelisFelis catusEcologyZoologyMammalHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Free-ranging cats (Felis catus) are globally distributed invasive carnivores that markedly impact biodiversity. Here, to evaluate the potential threat of cats, we develop a comprehensive global assessment of species consumed by cats. We identify 2,084 species eaten by cats, of which 347 (16.65%) are of conservation concern. Islands contain threefold more species of conservation concern eaten by cats than continents do. Birds, reptiles, and mammals constitute ~90% of species consumed, with insects and amphibians being less frequent. Approximately 9% of known birds, 6% of known mammals, and 4% of known reptile species are identified in cat diets. 97% of species consumed are <5 kg in adult body mass, though much larger species are also eaten. The species accumulation curves are not asymptotic, indicating that our estimates are conservative. Our results demonstrate that cats are extreme generalist predators, which is critical for understanding their impact on ecological systems and developing management solutions.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations59
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207