Correlates of Bird Collection Compositions in Thai Zoos: Implications for Conservation and Management
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
Zoo collection management is increasingly driven by meeting global conservation needs. Many avian species have experienced population declines throughout Southeast Asia, underscoring the importance of ex situ conservation in these countries. We focus on Thailand, a bird diversity hotspot with a long tradition of keeping birds in captive settings. We aimed to understand what drives species acquisition and maintenance in Thai zoos. To that end, we surveyed 55 zoos, making a complete inventory of reptiles, birds, and mammals on display. We recorded 249 bird species, of which 149 are not native to Thailand. Bird species diversity was positively correlated with mammal species diversity but not with the entry ticket price, the Gross Domestic Product of the province in which the zoo was based, or the size of the zoo. Diversity did differ significantly between zoo types (accredited, government and private zoos). There was a clear difference in the proportion of native and non-native species between zoos, with private zoos containing the highest number of non-native species, which may be related to the licensing status of these zoos. The composition of bird species in Thai zoos appears to be largely driven by their availability, the legal status for keeping them and serendipity. The conservation status seems to be of minor importance, contradicting the typical role of a zoo. To be considered global conservation players, zoos in countries of high species diversity, such as Thailand, have the unique opportunity to provide breeding programmes for some of the rarest species, yet they must improve their collection management plans to focus on such aims.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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