MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2257989167 · doi:10.2495/sdp-v10-n4-487-498

Restoring native fish populations in Australia’s murray darling basin

2015· article· en· W2257989167 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer Marohasy, J. Abbot

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersB. Macfie Family Foundation
KeywordsFisheryIntroduced speciesGeographyWetlandStructural basinEstuaryFreshwater fishFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2003, the Australian government launched The Native Fish Strategy for the Murray Darling Basin 2003-2013 with the objective of restoring native fish populations in the Murray Darling Basin to 60% of their of pre-European (before 1788) settlement levels.Ten years on, there is no evidence that native fish populations show any sign of recovery, despite the Millennium drought breaking and significant government expenditure including the buyback of irrigation licences to increase in-streamflow and facilitate the watering of adjacent forests and wetlands.We review the native fish strategy, considering the five priority interventions originally identified.We conclude that more freshwater is unlikely to be effective at restoring native fish populations unless three additional issues are addressed: cold-water pollution, predation from introduced salmonids and the damming of the estuary.Unfortunately, however, these contentious issues are neither identified nor discussed in the new official planning document.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning→Same topicFish Ecology and Management Studies→French-language works237,207→