Summer survey of dugong distribution and abundance in Shark Bay reveals additional key habitat area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first standardised summer aerial survey of dugongs within Shark Bay in Western Australia, and the fourth in a series of surveys of this area, was undertaken during February 2002. This survey returned a population estimate of 11 021 ± 1357 (s.e.), a result similar to the first two winter surveys in 1989 and 1994 but considerably lower than the 1999 survey. Distribution was markedly different in this survey compared with all previous surveys, which were conducted during winter, confirming that dugongs within Shark Bay undertake a seasonal migration driven by changes in sea surface temperature. In addition to this distribution pattern it was identified that 24% of the population during summer occurred within an area known as Henri Freycinet Harbour. That is, while dugongs have been reported in this south-western region of the bay previously in summer, this is the first time that the substantial size (2629 ± 780, s.e.) of the summer dugong population has been quantified. Differences in the population estimate between the 1999 survey and this survey may be explained through large-scale movement patterns of dugongs between Shark Bay and Ningaloo Reef and Exmouth Gulf to the north, patterns that should be considered in the management of dugongs for the entire region.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".