Guidelines for the safe use of disposable gloves with amphibian larvae in light of pathogens and possible toxic effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prior to the discovery and widespread recognition that pathogens such as Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd.) and ranaviruses can lead to the decline and even extinction of amphibian populations around the world, few herpetologists used gloves when handling amphibians. Disposable gloves, along with disinfection protocols (Webb et al. 2007), quarantine (Young et al. 2007), and reports by Daszak et al. (2001) and Lynch (2001) have since become an important tool in our arsenal for preventing the spread of pathogens between individuals and among populations or habitats. Cashins et al. (2008) recently reported that latex, vinyl, and nitrile gloves can be lethal to tadpoles of several species (Litoria genimaculata, L. nannotis, and Buio marinus), even after shortterm exposures during routine handling. Two previous studies had also found that latex and nitrile gloves (or water in which gloves had been soaked) could be lethal to Xenopus laevis and Rana tem· poraria tadpoles (Sobotka and Rahwan 1994, Gutleb et al. 2001). In an unrelated study aimed at developing hygiene protocols to prevent the spread of Bd among animals, Mendez et al. (2008) reported that bare hands that are washed between animals may be
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".