MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140691215 · doi:10.1071/wr08079

Combining a map-based public survey with an estimation of site occupancy to determine the recent and changing distribution of the koala in New South Wales

2009· article· en· W2140691215 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel Lunney, Mathew S. Crowther, Ian Shannon, Jessica V. Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenueWildlife Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhascolarctos cinereusOccupancyDistribution (mathematics)GeographyWildlife managementEcologyWildlife conservationFaunaConservation biologySpecies distributionScale (ratio)BiodiversityHabitatEnvironmental resource managementCartographyBiologyPopulationEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study demonstrates one solution to a problem faced by managers of species of conservation concern – how to develop broad-scale maps of populations, within known general distribution limits, for the purpose of targeted management action. We aimed to map the current populations of the koala, Phascolarctos cinereus, in New South Wales, Australia. This cryptic animal is widespread, although patchily distributed. It principally occurs on private property, and it can be hard to detect. We combined a map-based mail survey of rural and outer-urban New South Wales with recent developments in estimating site occupancy and species-detection parameters to determine the current (2006) distribution of the koala throughout New South Wales. We were able to define the distribution of koalas in New South Wales at a level commensurate with previous community and field surveys. Comparison with a 1986 survey provided an indication of changes in relative koala density across the state. The 2006 distribution map allows for local and state plans, including the 2008 New South Wales Koala Recovery Plan, to be more effectively implemented. The application of this combined technique can now be extended to a suite of other iconic species or species that are easily recognised by the public.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations69
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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