MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W794132057 · doi:10.5962/p.363950

Serum profiles of American Elk, Cervus elaphus, at time of handling for three capture methods

2000· article· en· W794132057 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Joshua J. Millspaugh, Mark A. Coleman, Peter J. Bauman, Kenneth J. Raedeke, Gary C. Brundige

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Field-Naturalist · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Park ServiceRocky Mountain Elk Foundation
KeywordsCervus elaphusGeographyCervusAnimal scienceForestryZoologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Serum profiles of American Elk, Cervus elaphus, at the time of handling for three capture methods.Canadian Field-Naturalist 114(2): 196-200.American Elk (Cervus elaphus) are captured using a variety of techniques and each may inflict various types of stress and/or injury that could affect animal well-being.We compared serum profiles of 25 free-ranging elk captured by helicopter net-gunning (n = 7), modified Clover traps (n = 7), and corralling (n = 11) in the Black Hills, South Dakota.Glucose, aspartate aminotransterase, and lactic dehydrogenase levels were higher in Clover-trapped elk than corralled or net-gunned elk.Potassium and creatinine kinase levels were higher in elk captured by corralling than elk captured by netguns or Clover traps.Bilirubin was higher in Clover trapped and corralled elk compared to net-gunned elk.Our results suggest (1) techniques requiring less time from capture to release (i.e., net-gunning) significantly reduce tissue and muscle damage versus methods in which elk were confined for longer periods of time (i.e., Clover trapping and corralling), (2) limiting the time elk are restrained to < 24 hours in corrals may reduce muscle and tissue damage, (3) several serum parameters should be measured in order to obtain a complete description of elk response to capture and restraint.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations13
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Field-NaturalistSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207