Australian fur seals establish haulout sites and a breeding colony in South Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Australian fur seals (Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus) breed on Bass Strait islands in Victoria and Tasmania. They have been recorded in South Australia (SA) for many years as non-breeding visitors and on Kangaroo Island frequently since 1988, mostly in breeding colonies of the New Zealand fur seal (A. forsteri) which is the most numerous pinniped in SA. Australian fur seals have displaced New Zealand fur seals from sections of the Cape Gantheaume colony on Kangaroo Island. North Casuarina Island produced 29 Australian fur seal pups in February 2008. Australian fur seal pups were larger than New Zealand fur seal pups in the same colony and have been identified genetically using a 263-bp fragment of the mitochondrial DNA control region. North Casuarina Island has been an important breeding colony of New Zealand fur seals, but pup numbers there decreased since 1992–93 (contrary to trends in SA for New Zealand fur seals), while numbers of Australian fur seals there have increased. This study confirms that Australian fur seals breed in SA. The two fur seal species compete for space onshore at several sites. Australian fur seals may compete for food with endangered Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea) because both are bottom feeders.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".