MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2189564813 · doi:10.24043/isj.206

The Quarantine Protection of Sub-Antarctic Australia: Two Islands, Two Regimes

2007· article· en· W2189564813 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sandra Potter

Bibliographic record

VenueIsland Studies Journal · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDepartment of the Environment, Australian GovernmentAustralian Antarctic DivisionUniversity of TasmaniaAustralian Government
KeywordsQuarantineIUCN Red ListBiosecurityGeographyEndangered speciesPoliticsEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementPolitical scienceEcologyHabitatBiologyLawEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sub-Antarctic Heard Island and Macquarie Island are among Australia’s offshore properties susceptible to colonization by species introduced by humans. While both islands share World Heritage status and are IUCN Category Ia Protected Areas (Strict Nature Reserves), different quarantine protection regimes are in operation. Macquarie Island’s biosecurity appears to be less catered for while the means and likelihood of introductions are greater. The administrative, political, practical and geographical contexts within which quarantine management planning takes place variously impact on the level of quarantine protection provided to both islands. These and other remote sites of high conservation value are unlikely to receive heightened protection until the issues associated with such management contexts receive greater attention.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIsland Studies JournalSame topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207