MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997809727 · doi:10.1071/wr04089

Factors affecting the detection of possums by spotlighting in Western Australia

2005· article· en· W1997809727 on OpenAlexaff
Adrian F. Wayne, Ann Cowling, J. F. Rooney, Colin G. Ward, I. B. Wheeler, David B. Lindenmayer, C.F. Donnelly

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransectGeographyBrushtail possumAerial surveyBiodiversityAbundance (ecology)EcologyForestryVegetation (pathology)EucalyptusPhysical geographyBiologyMarsupialCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes how environmental factors, survey method procedures and differences in forest structure resulting from logging relate to the detection of koomal (common brushtail possum, Trichosurus vulpecula hypoleucus) and ngwayir (western ringtail possum, Pseudocheirus occidentalis). A total of 169 vehicle-based spotlight surveys of possums within native jarrah (Eucalyptus marginata) forest was conducted on three transects over eight years (1996–2003). Up to 5.7 koomal and up to 3.3 ngwayir were detected per kilometre per transect side. Only one ngwayir was detected during the eight surveys conducted between 2001 and 2003. More koomal were seen in spring and autumn (i.e. September–November and March–May respectively) and more ngwayir were seen between October and April. Although surveys were not conducted on very rainy or excessively windy nights, fewer possums were nonetheless seen on nights following rainy days and on cold nights. Cloud cover also affected sightings of koomal. The time taken to complete the surveys increased in conjunction with the number of possums detected, on account of the time required to record data. The importance of standardising travelling speed also is emphasised. Possum spotlight counts differed between recently logged and unlogged areas. However, these findings were not supported by complementary koomal abundance estimates derived from trapping, suggesting that vegetation structure may affect detectability. Factors such as the lunar cycle, wind speed and survey start time after sunset did not significantly affect detection rates of either species. On the basis of these findings, specific survey conditions can be selected to improve spotlight detection efficiency.

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)0.002
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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations29
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWildlife ResearchSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207