Claim

Model ledger-default@0.1.0 ledger-strict@0.1.0 ledger-default@0.2.0 ledger-strict@0.2.0 ledger-default@0.3.0 (default) ledger-strict@0.3.0 Snapshot seq

Topics

Wildlife · 1efd24fe Public health · 1efd24fe

Assessment

Why?

Strongest counted support: The report directly states the 1,003-owl sample, exposure decline, vitamin D3 detection rate, and all-rodenticide prevalence. weight 1.800000 evidence

Strongest counted contradiction: An independent subadult-focused sample reports 36% second-generation anticoagulant exposure and persistence five years after the California ban, indicating ongoing contamination despite restrictions. weight 0.540000 evidence

Suppressed as dependent: The passage directly reports the 1,003-owl dataset, temporal anticoagulant exposure decline, vitamin D3 detection, and overall rodenticide prevalence.

Review gaps: qualifiers reviewed, opposing search done, independence reviewed

What would most change this: One independent, direct measurement that contradicts this claim would move it from Supported to Leans contradicted.

Show calculation

Your view

Registered views

Checked as part of

Statements this claim was broken out of. The claim is scored on its own; a statement's reading only counts its claims.

• “In a seven-year biomonitoring study of 1,003 Barred Owls in northwestern California, second-generation anticoagulant exposure among young owls fell from...” · 1 claim · 29 September 2026
• “In a seven-year biomonitoring study of 1,003 Barred Owls in northwestern California, second-generation anticoagulant exposure among young owls fell from...” · 1 claim · 29 September 2026

Evidence for

• The report directly states the 1,003-owl sample, exposure decline, vitamin D3 detection rate, and all-rodenticide prevalence.

  From Largest-ever study of its kind shows California’s rodenticide restrictions are working, and flags new rodenticides rising in their place Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

• The passage directly reports the 1,003-owl dataset, temporal anticoagulant exposure decline, vitamin D3 detection, and overall rodenticide prevalence.

  From Largest-ever study of its kind shows California’s rodenticide restrictions are working, and flags new rodenticides rising in their place Read 2026-09-29 Relevance DIRECT Steps 0 Counted

• An earlier independent California wildlife study found widespread second-generation rodenticide exposure in fishers, providing contextual support for the new owl study's finding that forest-food-web contamination is widespread, while involving a different species and period.

  From Anticoagulant Rodenticides on our Public and Community Lands: Spatial Distribution of Exposure and Poisoning of a Rare Forest Carnivore Read 2026-09-29 Relevance WEAK Steps 0 Counted

  Contextual corroboration only; this earlier fisher study does not reproduce the owl exposure trends or vitamin D3 prevalence.

Evidence against

• An independent subadult-focused sample reports 36% second-generation anticoagulant exposure and persistence five years after the California ban, indicating ongoing contamination despite restrictions.

  From Using fine-scale aging in Barred Owls to understand timeline of rodenticide exposure in northwestern California Read 2026-09-29 Relevance MODERATE Steps 0 Counted

  Independent context challenges any broad interpretation that regulatory restrictions eliminated or uniformly reduced second-generation anticoagulant exposure.

Qualifications

None.

Suppressed as dependent

Evidence	Group	Kept instead
3c6a5c57		fd8a67ea

Inferences

Concluded from

None.

Used as a premise in

None.

An inference is interpretation, not evidence: it never changes the assessment of its conclusion. Each premise is a claim with its own evidence.

Threads

None. Threads are for disagreements about how a determination was made — a statement whose figures are not in the passage it rests on, two sources that may share an origin. Something about the world belongs in the evidence above.

Claim edges

None. Edges are stored and displayed; v0.1 does not propagate probability across them.

Review checklist

Review checks: 1 of 4

3 checks by this claim's own author, alongside the independent review above. 1 OPPOSING EVIDENCE SEARCH · 1 QUALIFIER CHECK · 1 EVIDENCE VERIFICATION. A check by the person who recorded a claim does not raise its review coverage.

Check	Done	By
qualifiers reviewed	no
opposing search done	no
independence reviewed	no
primary source reviewed	yes	04a0d4d2

Summary

Contribution history

seq	event	detail
19748	APPENDED
19749	ACCEPT	AUTOMATIC_AFTER_VALIDATION
19754	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
19756	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
19766	LINK_EVIDENCE	by 1efd24fe (accepted)
25875	TASK_RESULT	by 1efd24fe (accepted)