{"id":"W2129610949","doi":"10.1139/f09-054","title":"Consistency of COSEWIC species at risk designations: freshwater fishes as a case study","year":2009,"lang":"en","type":"article","venue":"Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences","topic":"Fish Ecology and Management Studies","field":"Environmental Science","cited_by":14,"is_retracted":false,"has_abstract":true,"ca_institutions":"University of Guelph; Assembly of First Nations","funders":"","keywords":"Endangered species; Wildlife; Threatened species; Consistency (knowledge bases); Transparency (behavior); Risk assessment; Wildlife conservation; Conservation status; Geography; Environmental resource management; European union; Ecology; Fishery; Environmental science; Biology; Business; Computer science; Habitat","routes":{"ca_aff":true,"ca_fund":false,"ca_venue":true,"about_ca":true,"invisible_to_affiliation_only":false},"retraction":null,"screen":null,"direct_labels":[],"prediction":{"model_version":"metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061c","candidate_categories":[],"consensus_categories":[],"category_scores_codex":[0.0674236,0.0003332629,0.0004845753,0.003379335,0.002282968,0.001912859,0.002022543,0.000910262,0.0006688104],"category_scores_gemma":[0.1529472,0.0003800171,0.0006031167,0.003142525,0.002410491,0.00191766,0.003115495,0.001231674,0.00008327165],"about_ca_system_candidate":true,"about_ca_system_consensus":false,"about_ca_system_score_codex":0.006482259,"about_ca_system_score_gemma":0.004897486,"about_ca_topic_candidate":true,"about_ca_topic_consensus":false,"about_ca_topic_score_codex":0.04281931,"about_ca_topic_score_gemma":0.06715481,"domain_scores_codex":[0.9563102,0.02575232,0.004746025,0.002984433,0.008712028,0.001495046],"domain_scores_gemma":[0.838482,0.09769444,0.02453724,0.009518439,0.02817711,0.001590864],"domain_codex":null,"domain_gemma":null,"domain_candidate":null,"domain_consensus":null,"study_design_codex":"observational","study_design_gemma":"observational","study_design_scores_codex":[0.0008226098,0.0002289337,0.9160805,0.0001565428,0.0001654832,0.0009343507,0.02534994,0.006722993,0.001136191,0.002463834,0.0007420537,0.0451966],"study_design_scores_gemma":[0.0001219567,0.001652015,0.8657598,0.0004034295,0.0001938501,0.001701842,0.06243971,0.04581129,0.007796011,0.005894941,0.007929216,0.0002957998],"study_design_candidate":"observational","study_design_consensus":"observational","genre_codex":"empirical","genre_gemma":"empirical","genre_scores_codex":[0.9932417,0.00008857651,0.004740382,0.0002254784,0.00001608813,0.000248532,0.0001048665,0.0000135755,0.001320914],"genre_scores_gemma":[0.9924401,0.00003505865,0.007059494,0.0000394089,0.0000060144,0.0001168416,0.0001391103,0.000007365041,0.0001565948],"genre_candidate":"empirical","genre_consensus":"empirical","teacher_disagreement_score":0.9935178,"threshold_uncertainty_score":0.3565743,"prediction_status":"machine_predicted_unvalidated"},"machine_scores":{"provisional":true,"baseline":true,"maturity_gate_passed":false,"score_opus":0.02343731020054505,"score_gpt":0.2221289283959628,"score_spread":0.1986916181954178,"validation_status":"score_only:v0-immature-baseline","note":"Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed). Scores rank; they never assert a category."}}