MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415526125 · doi:10.1139/cjz-2025-0091

Evaluating the impact of rabbit hemorrhagic disease (RHDV2) on a feral population of naïve European rabbits ( <i>Oryctolagus cuniculus</i> )

2025· article· en· W4415526125 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Elizabeth A. L. Gillis

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEuropean rabbitOutbreakPopulationPopulation sizeWildlifeWildlife diseasePopulation density

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Diseases can cause rapid declines in wildlife populations, especially in populations with no previous exposure to the disease. An acute, mostly fatal emerging lagomorph disease, rabbit hemorrhagic disease (RHD), has recently been detected in North American hares and rabbits. In February 2018, feral European Rabbits ( Oryctolagus cuniculus (Linnaeus, 1758)) were found dead on a university campus in Nanaimo, British Columbia marking the first Canadian occurrence of RHD in free-living rabbits. We used sight-resighting and rabbit count data to examine the short- and long-term impact of RHD on rabbit population size. We evaluated the medium-term impact of RHD on population size through sight-resighting surveys 6 months after the RHD outbreak started. During the initial phase of the outbreak, the population declined up to 5.75% per day and population size decreased 86% in less than 2 months. Population size remained low after the breeding season (mid-February through September) and through the following year. Population numbers began to recover within 2 years of the outbreak, and population size continued to increase through January 2025. Our results show RHDV2 can cause very high immediate mortality rates in feral rabbits and population level impacts of an outbreak can persist for years.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of ZoologySame topicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, HealthFrench-language works237,207