CURRENT BIOSECURITY PRACTICES IN THE HANDLING AND SAMPLING OF CERVIDS: A CROSS-SECTIONAL SURVEY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective biosecurity practices are essential for mitigating the risks of pathogen transmission in human-wildlife interactions, yet it is unclear how infection control policies are put into action by those working with wildlife. We evaluated biosecurity practices among professionals working with cervids in the US and Canada via an electronic survey conducted between March 2024 and June 2024. The objectives were to identify pathogens of concern, describe current biosecurity protocols, evaluate the appropriateness of disinfecting practices, and explore associations between biosecurity practices and factors such as profession, regional disease status, and the nature of interactions with cervids. Survey respondents were primarily ecologists or biologists (47%), veterinarians (46%), and managers or wildlife capture professionals lacking those backgrounds (6%). Respondents identified chronic wasting disease (CWD) and SARS-CoV-2 as primary pathogens of concern, with CWD being the most frequently targeted for disinfection, even in nonendemic areas. Although most respondents indicated the use of biosecurity protocols, adherence was inconsistent, particularly in free-living settings. Professionals working with captive cervids were significantly more likely to consistently follow biosecurity protocols than those working exclusively with free-living cervids. Use of personal protective equipment was common. Veterinarians were more likely than managers lacking an ecology, biology, or veterinary background to disinfect cervid sampling equipment between individual animals. Those working in regions where CWD was endemic were more likely to have formal biosecurity policies and cleaning and disinfection protocols compared with those in nonendemic areas. Our study also identified biosecurity protocol gaps, with some respondents using ineffective disinfectants or suboptimal concentrations against reported pathogens of concern. These findings highlight the need for standardized, evidence-based guidelines when developing and implementing cervid biosecurity protocols, particularly regarding effective disinfectant use.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".