History and establishment of Two Peoples Bay Nature Reserve
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context This paper sets out the events leading to the establishment of Two Peoples Bay Nature Reserve. Methods This paper is based on research into literature relating to the Albany region, government files and oral accounts relating to the area. Key results Long known to the Noongar peoples, Two Peoples Bay was first mapped by Europeans in 1791 by Captain George Vancouver. The area was rapidly established as a base for the over-exploitation of natural resources. As the region became more developed and human population increased, recreational pressure on the area was such that the Western Australian Government surveyed Two Peoples Bay to establish a townsite. Just before the final surveys for the townsite were completed, the supposedly-extinct noisy scrub-bird (Atrichornis clamosus), was rediscovered there. National and international pressure on the WA Government from the conservation movement resulted in the reversal of the decision to develop a town in the area and led to the establishment of Two Peoples Bay Nature Reserve in 1967. Conclusions The establishment of Two Peoples Bay Nature Reserve in the face of pressure for the development of a town on the bay, provides an interesting example of the needs of nature conservation over-riding real estate development. Implications Although nature conservation values rarely stop real estate development, the Two Peoples Bay example demonstrates that nature conservation may prevail over real estate development, in this case involving the rediscovery of a species believed extinct.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".