Estimating the abundance of eastern grey kangaroos (Macropus giganteus) in south-eastern New South Wales, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To provide an estimate of kangaroo numbers for harvest management, a survey was designed for an area of 29 500 km2 encompassing the agricultural and grazing lands of the Braidwood, Cooma, Goulburn, Gundagai and Yass Rural Lands Protection Board (RLPB) districts in south-east New South Wales. An aerial survey using a helicopter was considered more efficient than ground survey because of the size of the area, relatively high relief and dense tree cover, and the need for regular monitoring. Tree cover and landscape relief was used to stratify the five RLPB districts into areas of probable high, medium and low kangaroo density. Kangaroo density estimated from helicopter surveys conducted in the Northern Tablelands of New South Wales was used to suggest densities and thereby allocate survey effort in each stratum. A survey comprising 735 km of transect line was conducted in winter 2003 with a target precision of 20%. The survey returned an estimate of 286 600 ± 32 300 eastern grey kangaroos for the whole of the proposed south-east New South Wales kangaroo-management zone. In 2004, a trial harvest of slightly less than 15% of this estimate was taken. Success of the trial will be determined by the impact of harvesting on the population’s dynamics, by landholder and industry participation, and by the capacity to monitor population size, harvest offtake and compliance with regulations.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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".