Managing the Grey-headed Flying-fox as a threatened species in New South Wales two decades on: contentious issues for horticulturalists and communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Managing the Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus as a species vulnerable to extinction in New South Wales (NSW) is complicated by contentious issues arising from flying-foxes feeding on commercial fruit and roosting in populated areas. Two decades on from their threatened species listing in 2001, there have been major developments in managing these issues. The NSW Flying-fox Consultative Committee was formed in 2001 with representation of a range of stakeholder groups. A transition towards non-lethal means of protecting horticultural crops from flying-fox damage was supported by government programs that encouraged the uptake of exclusion netting in orchards. Cull limits and restrictions on licences to shoot flying-foxes on horticultural land were steps to the phasing out of legal shooting of flying-foxes. The need to address community concerns about flying-fox camps in populated areas led to the development of the Flying-fox Camp Management Policy and funds to support land managers to implement policy actions. Dispersing camps has been largely ineffective in the long-term, placing the emphasis on managing camps in-situ. This has involved physical buffers between flying-foxes and human settlements and subsidising equipment and services for residents to self-mitigate impacts from flying-foxes. However, community sentiments continue to be influenced by the difficulties experienced by affected communities, perceived disease risks from flying-foxes, frustrations with there being no immediately effective solutions and the portrayal of flying-foxes and associated issues in the media. To address these issues, there has been considerable effort to engage communities to promote the ecological importance of flying-foxes, reduce misconceptions about disease transmission risks, and promote precautionary measures for reducing these risks; as well as research on mitigation measures for flying-fox impacts. To conserve the Grey-headed Flying-fox while addressing ongoing contentious issues impacting horticulturalists and communities, there needs to be investment into long-term solutions, such as public education, social research and conserving and restoring habitat in less populated areas. There is a need for cross-jurisdictional collaboration on managing the Grey-headed Flying-fox since this threatened species is mobile and not constrained to jurisdictional borders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".