MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098775316 · doi:10.1071/wr04111

Mortality and survivorship of the quokka (Setonix brachyurus) (Macropodidae : Marsupialia) in the northern jarrah forest of Western Australia

2005· article· en· W2098775316 on OpenAlexaff
Matt W. Hayward, Paul J. de Tores, M. L. Augee, Peter B. Banks

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivorship curveBiologyThreatened speciesPopulationJuvenileEcologyPredationDemographyZoologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The potential for the quokka (Setonix brachyurus (Quoy & Gaimard, 1830)), a threatened macropodid marsupial, to increase in abundance following the initiation of predator control was investigated by determining the cause of deaths of radio-collared individuals. Predation was identified as a major cause of death followed by road kills. The non-parametric Kaplan–Meier method modified for staggered entry of individuals was used to estimate survivorship. Although males and females were affected differently by each cause of mortality, their overall survivorship did not differ significantly. Individuals alive at the beginning of the 25-month study had a 61% chance of surviving to the end. This represented an 81% chance of surviving for 1 year. There was no significant difference in survivorship between adults and juveniles. Current rates of adult and juvenile survivorship should allow population recovery, although none has been evident. Pouch young mortality is hypothesised to have inhibited the anticipated quokka population increase since the initiation of predator control. The observed expulsion of pouch young by females when threatened may be a primary predator avoidance strategy.

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.122
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations23
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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