MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409462659 · doi:10.1002/ece3.71114

Landscape as a Shared Space for Badgers and Cattle: Insights Into Indirect Contact and Bovine Tuberculosis Transmission Risk

2025· article· en· W4409462659 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Emma Holmes, Maria O’Hagan, F. D. Menzies, Andrew W. Byrne, Kathryn R. McBride, D. Michael Scantlebury, Neil Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Evolution · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's University BelfastQueen's UniversityDepartment of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, UK Government
KeywordsBadgerGrazingLivestockPastureFodderAnimal husbandryBiologyGeographyBovine tuberculosisTransmission (telecommunications)EcologyAnimal scienceVeterinary medicineAgronomyMycobacterium bovisTuberculosisAgricultureMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Though the magnitude of effect is uncertain, badger–cattle indirect contact has been implicated in bovine tuberculosis (bTB) transmission risk to cattle despite a paucity of data on badger space use. This study tracked field use by 35 GPS‐collared bTB test‐negative badgers (n = 3738 locational fixes, average fixes/badger = 107) and cattle grazing regimes at 446 fields over one grazing season (May–November 2016) on 18 farms (n = 56,202 field‐days). Individual badger visits spanned on average 3 farms (max. 9 farms). Badgers entered fields when occupied by grazing cattle on 20% of field‐days (nights). Most individual badgers (n = 25; 71%) were recorded in the same field as cattle on multiple occasions (up to 124 field‐days each). There was substantial interindividual variation, with 29% of badgers (n = 10) never co‐occurring with cattle. Badger field use was positively associated with dairy (rather than beef) production (especially when grazing cattle were present) and with fodder and rough grazing fields (compared with improved pasture and ‘other’ cattle‐related land use). Badgers were recorded in larger fields (range 0.06 to 10.9 ha) more frequently, especially when not actively grazed. They were significantly less likely to use fields with calves compared to fields containing cattle of other age groups. The presence of a badger sett in a field increased the likelihood of field use by tracked badgers. Farm management that minimises cattle–badger indirect contact in fields with setts may reduce bTB transmission risk to cattle. Delaying grazing of fodder fields after (silage) harvest until sward length has increased, restricting grazing to improved pastures, keeping calves with cows longer, or ensuring all batches of cattle have at least some calves present and not grazing fields with badger setts (or fencing around setts to prevent cattle access) may provide simple, cost‐effective strategies to reduce indirect badger–cattle contact, thus potentially lowering bTB transmission risk.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and EvolutionSame topicAnimal Disease Management and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207