MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280526192 · doi:10.7882/az.2022.014

Managing the Grey-headed Flying-fox as a threatened species in New South Wales two decades on: contentious issues for horticulturalists and communities

2022· article· en· W4280526192 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Zoologist · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThreatened speciesGeographyNettingRecreationHuman settlementEnvironmental planningStakeholderWildlifeEnvironmental resource managementFisheryEnvironmental protectionPolitical scienceEcologyArchaeologyHabitatLawBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.239 · 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