MORBIDITY AND MORTALITY OF CAPTIVE WHOOPING CRANES AT THE INTERNATIONAL\nCRANE FOUNDATION 1976-2008
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tracking the incidence of morbidity and mortality in captive animal collections helps inform husbandry and preventive medicine programs aimed at improving population health and viability. Carpenter and Derrickson (1982) and Olsen et al. (1997) published summary reports of captive whooping crane (Grus americana) mortality that served to identify key problem areas for the primary breeding flock and potential reintroduction programs involving this endangered species. We expanded on this approach and conducted an initial evaluation of morbidity and mortality factors for whooping cranes at the International Crane Foundation (ICF). The purpose of our study was to identify overrepresented factors and investigate management alternatives to prevent or minimize disease occurrence and mortality, and make recommendations for more effective use of veterinary resources in the future. The medical records of 92 cranes (43 males, 46 females, 3 unknown) were examined for causes of morbidity and mortality from their time of arrival at ICF. Subjects departed the flock due to transfer to other institutions or death. The first brood stock arrived in 1989 from the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, in 3 shipments totaling 22 cranes. From 1990 to 1996, 49 whooping crane eggs collected from wild nests in Wood Buffalo National Park (WBNP), Alberta, Canada, were sent to ICF for captive rearing of hatched chicks. The remainder of the records pertained to individuals accessioned since 1976 that were transferred from other institutions or hatched and retained at ICF for the purpose of captive breeding. Records for all groups were reviewed through 2008. The records of all chicks transferred for reintroduction were not included due to their short time in captivity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".