Managing the Grey-headed Flying-fox as a threatened species in New South Wales two decades on: threats and conservation issues
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The Grey-headed Flying-fox Pteropus poliocephalus was listed as a vulnerable species by both the New South Wales (NSW) and Australian Governments in 2001. The NSW Government has since collaborated with other organisations and stakeholders on projects and initiatives for flying-fox conservation and population monitoring. While contentious issues for horticulturalists and communities are detailed in a companion paper, this paper examines a number of persistent threats and conservation issues, such as habitat destruction and food shortages, anthropogenic injuries and extreme heat events. While there have been several independent efforts to conserve flying-fox habitat leading up to the recent commencement of a state-wide funding program for flying-fox habitat restoration, the continual loss of foraging habitat to urban development occurring at a greater scale is a conundrum. Flying-foxes suffering from injuries with anthropogenic causes are primarily addressed by wildlife carers rescuing and rehabilitating them. Additionally, preventative actions, such as promotion of wildlife-friendly netting, are implemented by different organisations to reduce injuries. There is also work being done by government agencies, land managers, scientists and wildlife carers to improve heat stress management, including moving towards a more coordinated and collaborative approach for responding to extreme heat events and undertaking scientific research. The diversity of threats affecting the Grey-headed Flying-fox means that the species’ conservation is beyond the capacity of any one organisation and relies on the collaborative efforts of a broad range of stakeholders across the entire species’ range.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it