MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086907150 · doi:10.1071/zo07002

Ecology of the western bearded dragon (Pogona minor) in unmined forest and forest restored after bauxite mining in south-west Western Australia

2007· article· en· W2086907150 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Craig, Mark J. Garkaklis, G.E.St.J. Hardy, Andrew H. Grigg, Carl D. Grant, Patricia A. Fleming, Richard J. Hobbs

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Zoology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcologyEcological successionFaunaBiologyGeneralist and specialist speciesRange (aeronautics)Vegetation (pathology)Habitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest areas restored after mining typically take decades, or longer, before they resemble the original vegetation community. Understanding how fauna succession varies with plant succession requires detailed knowledge of an animal’s ecology. Knowledge of an animal’s ecology can also be used to predict faunal responses to management manipulations and enable techniques to be developed that accelerate the return of fauna to restored sites. We radio-tracked western bearded dragons (Pogona minor) in a mix of unmined forest sites and sites restored after bauxite mining, in the jarrah forest of south-west Western Australia, to determine critical resources and important microhabitats for dragons. Dragons were generalists – utilising a range of microhabitats – and adaptable, adjusting their microhabitat use depending on availability. Individuals also differed significantly in their microhabitat use and did not appear to have a defined home range. We concluded that the species would rapidly recolonise restored sites and that no modifications to current restoration practices were required to accelerate their return. Prescribed burning of restored areas could negatively affect this species but the effect would be short-term (<2 years). The approach used in this study could be used to develop management prescriptions that accelerate the return of late-successional species to restored sites.

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)0.000
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations22
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of ZoologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207