MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106681061 · doi:10.7882/az.2009.007

The diet of the re-introduced greater bilby <i>Macrotis lagotis</i> in the mallee woodlands of western New South Wales

2009· article· en· W2106681061 on OpenAlexaff
Mangala Navnith, Graeme Finlayson, Mathew S. Crowther, Chris R. Dickman

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Zoologist · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodlandBiologyZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The greater bilby Macrotis lagotis once occupied about 70% of the Australian mainland but is now restricted in occurrence to just 20% of its former range. It is classified as Extinct in New South Wales. We assessed the major components of the diet of a recently re-introduced population of bilbies at Scotia Sanctuary, in western New South Wales, from faecal material collected over a period of 13 months. Animals consumed more invertebrates than green plant material and seeds throughout the study, although there was temporal variation in the presence of these food categories. Five orders of invertebrates were identified, with Coleoptera (beetles) occurring in more than 80% of faecal samples and Isoptera (termites) and Formicidae (ants) in 48% and 40%, respectively. These results identify key components of the diet of the first population of bilbies in New South Wales since the early 20th century and, combined with detailed studies of habitat requirements and prey abundance, should assist with selection of additional sites to expand the distribution of this iconic species further in future.

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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations24
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian ZoologistSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207