MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6989661948

Capturing and Handling\nWild Animals

2009· article· en· W6989661948 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueInsecta mundi · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildlifeAnimal welfarePopulationWildlife managementPopulation controlLegislationWildlife conservationWelfareAnimal agriculture
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The art of capturing wild animals for food and clothing is as old as human existence on earth. However, in today’s world, reasons for catching wild species are more diverse. Millions of wild animals are captured each year as part of damage and disease control programs, population regulation activities, wildlife management efforts, and research studies. Many aspects of animal capture, especially those associated with protected wildlife species, are highly regulated by both state and federal governmental agencies. Animal welfare concerns are important regardless of the reason for capture. In addition, efficiency (the rate at which a device or system catches (he intended species) is a critical aspect of wild animal capture systems.\nSuccessful capture programs result from the efforts of experienced wildlife biologists and technicians who have planned, studied, and tested methods prior to starting any new program. State regulations related to animal capture vary widely and licenses or permits, as well as specialized training may be required by state wildlife agencies for scientists, managers, and others engaging in animal capture for research, damage management, or fur harvest. Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, required at universities and research institutions by the Animal Welfare Act (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2002), often question whether scientists capturing animals for research have ensured that pain and distress are minimized by the techniques used. The information in this chapter will assist wildlife management practitioners to identify appropriate equipment and obtain the necessary approvals for its use. Researchers are encouraged to consult Littell (1993) and Gaunt et al. (1997) concerning guidelines and procedures relating to capture and handling permits.\nMajor reviews of bird capture techniques include Canadian Wildlife Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1977), Day et al. (1980), Davis (1981), Keyes and Grue (1982), Bloom (1987), Bub (1991 ), Schemnitz (1994), and Gaunt et al. (1997). Detailed coverage of mammal capture methods include Day et al. (1980). Novak et al. (1987), Schemnitz (1994), Wilson et al. (1996), American Society of Mammalogists (1998), and Proulx (1999a). Mammal capture usually becomes more difficult as animal size increases. Thus, observational techniques and mammalian sign are often more efficient for obtaining both inventory and density information (jones et al. 1996). Several new techniques to capture mammals ranging in size from small rodents to large carnivores have been developed in recent 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.180
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsecta mundiSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207