MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045413625 · doi:10.1071/wr06110

Broad-scale environmental influences on the abundance of saltwater crocodiles (Crocodylus porosus) in Australia

2007· article· en· W2045413625 on OpenAlexaff
Yusuke Fukuda, Peter Whitehead, Guy Boggs

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsCarbon Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrocodylusCrocodileGeographyAbundance (ecology)EcologyWetlandHabitatPopulationBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) populations have recovered strongly across northern Australia over the 30 years since the species was protected from hunting. However, monitoring studies show large geographical variations in abundance across the Northern Territory, Queensland and Western Australia. The Northern Territory has considerably higher densities, raising questions about constraints on recovery in the other states. We examined broad-scale environmental influences on population abundance by modelling the species–environment relationships across northern Australia. The hypothesis-based models showed strong support for the linkage to (1) the ratio of total area of favourable wetland vegetation types (Melaleuca, grass and sedge) to total catchment area, (2) a measure of rainfall seasonality, namely the ratio of total precipitation in the coldest quarter to total precipitation in the warmest quarter of a year, and (3) the mean temperature in the coldest quarter of a year. On the other hand, we were unable to show any clear negative association with landscape modification, as indicated by the extent of high-impact land uses or human population density in catchments. We conclude that geographical variations in crocodile density are mostly attributable to differences in habitat quality rather than the management regimes adopted in the respective jurisdictions.

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 score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Citations27
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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