Ecological conclusions remain unchanged for white sharks in South Africa: A reply to Gennari et al. 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent Letter to the Editor by Gennari et al. (2024) contends that methodological issues and data uncertainties may be obscuring declines in abundance of the white shark population in South Africa in the analyses of Bowlby et al. (2023). We have addressed their critiques using scientifically accepted analytical understanding to demonstrate why our ecological conclusions remain unchanged: (1) the relative abundance of white sharks has not exhibited systematic increases or declines at a regional level since protection in 1991, and (2) observed data on human-shark incidents are consistent with the hypothesis that white sharks have partially redistributed along the South African coastline. Future long-term, standardized monitoring throughout South Africa would be expected to substantially reduce uncertainty about the population trend and status of white sharks. Ultimately, the lack of abundance increase following protection remains concerning and necessitates continued conservation efforts.
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 | 0.017 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.048 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
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".