Restating the Case for a Sharp Population Decline in Lemur catta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As with many other species in the primate order, ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) are threatened with extinction. Our articles documented declines in wild ring-tailed lemur populations and noted that fewer than 2,500 wild ring-tailed lemurs are known to persist in 32 [Gould and Sauther: Primate Conservation 2016; 30: 89-101] and 34 [LaFleur et al.: Folia Primatologica 2017; 87: 320-330] sites. A criticism of our articles [Murphy et al.: International Journal of Primatology 2017; 38: 623-628] suggested that we have inadequately sampled ring-tailed lemur populations and habitats, and misused the literature. We disagree, and provide both a detailed rebuttal and responses to specific critique points herein. Moreover, we restate our case outlining a dramatic decline of ring-tailed lemurs resulting from anthropogenic pressures (deforestation, severe habitat fragmentation, extraction for the pet and bushmeat trades). We pose several thought-provoking questions as to when is the appropriate time for researchers to "sound the alarm" about a species' decline, and remain committed to understanding the drivers of unsustainable exploitation of this emblematic lemur, and preventing their extinction in the wild.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".