MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7093731965

Safety

2018· article· W7093731965 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLincoln (University of Nebraska) · 2018
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife-Road Interactions and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGovernment (linguistics)Agency (philosophy)Variety (cybernetics)MindsetOccupational safety and healthLegislationSafety standardsTask (project management)Control (management)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildlife damage management (WDM) is an exciting field with many opportunities to provide solutions to the complex issues involved in human-wildlife interactions. In addition, WDM wildlife control operators (WCO) face a variety of threats to their physical well-being. Injuries can result from misused (Figure 1), faulty, or poorly maintained equipment, inexperience, mishandled wildlife, harsh weather, and dangerous situations, such as electrical lines. The goals of this publication are to: * Develop an awareness of safety issues and adopt a mindset of “Safety First”, * Review the major safety threats that WCOs face, * Provide basic information for WCOs to protect themselves, and * List resources for further information and training. Although no statistics are available for the WDM industry in particular, the authors are aware of several instances where WCOs have lost their lives or suffered serious injuries while performing WDM. While accidents do happen, most are preventable and occur due to hurried behavior, neglect of procedures, or lack of attention to the task at hand. The United States, Canada, and Mexico have agencies tasked with setting and enforcing standards to assure safe and healthful conditions for workers. The U.S. agency is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). In Canada, it is the Labour Program, and in Mexico, the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare governs workplace requirements. Readers are encouraged to keep abreast of government safety regulations not only to follow the law, but also to maintain a safe working environment. Safety is an extremely broad and complex topic. The number and diversity of situations that pose safety risks to WCOs are numerous. This publication focuses specifically on safety risks to the WCOs’ physical wellbeing, such as injuries. Safety concerns pertaining to organizational design, worker supervision, disease, environmental or social catastrophes, or pesticides are beyond its scope. Work in WDM poses many safety risks to those involved. Awareness, planning, and deliberate action can eliminate or reduce many threats. As the industry continues to develop, WCOs must keep up with new threats and safety practices to maintain their well-being. Following safe work practices helps to ensure WCOs remain on-the-job and injury free.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3850.261

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.195
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLincoln (University of Nebraska)Same topicWildlife-Road Interactions and ConservationFrench-language works237,207