MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7000292382

Factors Contributing to Recent House Mouse Eradication Failures on Islands: An Initial Assessment Following a Workshop in New Zealand

2024· article· en· W7000292382 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRodenticideBiodiversityHuman useHouse miceInvasive speciesIntroduced speciesAnimal health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasive house mice threaten native biodiversity on many of the world’s islands. Best practice for eradicating house mouse populations from islands currently relies on bait containing the anticoagulant rodenticide brodifacoum. These baits are typically either broadcast (by hand or by helicopter in natural areas) or placed in bait stations (in human infrastructure or in areas where open broadcast is not permitted). There have been many successful mouse eradications using these methods, including 29 of 36 attempts of islands being successful (81%) in New Zealand. Following recent failed mouse eradications on Gough Island (South Atlantic, 2021) and Midway Atoll (North Pacific, 2023), a workshop was convened with 24 people attending (16 in-person, 8 on-line) from 7 countries (Australia, Canada, France, NZ, South Africa, UK, US), to discuss some hypotheses for what may have contributed to these unsuccessful outcomes. The workshop was held in Palmerston North, New Zealand, between November 27 and 29, 2023. Discussions over the three days revolved around three hypotheses. We present the key factors hypothesized for why eradications failed on these two islands. We also outline research and operational needs that were identified in the workshop that can contribute to improved outcomes for future eradications of house mice from targeted islands.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.180
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)→Same topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies→French-language works237,207→