MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2184727965 · doi:10.7882/fs.2010.032

Yuppie bandicoots of inner western Sydney - in hiding or urban renewal?

2010· book-chapter· en· W2184727965 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tanya Leary, Alan Kwok, Khan Ben, Paul A. Ibbetson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBandicootGeographyGenealogyZoologyBiologyHistoryMarsupial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long-nosed bandicoots Perameles nasuta were thought to have disappeared from inner western Sydney by the mid to late 1960s. This paper documents recent (2002-present) records of long-nosed bandicoots in the urban areas of inner western Sydney, including carcases (n=7), animals live-trapped or observed by us (n=7), and reports from the public (n=35). We also surveyed for bandicoot diggings in 88 urban parks and found 12 which contained possible diggings. Most of these records are concentrated in the suburbs of Dulwich Hill, Marrickville, Lewisham, and Petersham in an area of less than 1.9 km by 1.1 km (approximately 95 ha) in the local government area (LGA) of Marrickville, but when other scattered records are included, come from an 8.5 km x 6 km area in the LGAs of Ashfield, Canada Bay, Canterbury, and Leichhardt. A pilot radio-tracking study of two adult females found that they foraged almost exclusively in urban backyards and nested by day under old buildings. One female provided enough data for home range analysis, and had a home range of 2.7 ha (MCP) or 1.47 ha (KL95%); the core home range (KL50%) was only 0.16 ha. There were no signs that either individual avoided activity during peak hour traffic, although they often did not come out to forage for a whole night, or only foraged for a few hours within a night. We suggest that this might be a form of predator avoidance behaviour since feral and domestic cats were common in the area, and/or that they are able to obtain sufficient food in the short times they are active. We also speculate on the origins of these animals.

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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→