Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The leadership fundamentals identified by Bruyere (2015) miss a cornerstone of effective conservation leadership, namely a clear sense of purpose. Conservation often demands that we act fast (Martin et al. 2012), which requires clarity of purpose; “we are here to… (conserve species and ecosystems),” ahead of the long-term vision-building perspective emphasized by Bruyere (2015). All leaders, knowingly or not, work in a system; an ecosystem is obviously a system, but so is an NGO, a farm, a protected area, or a species recovery project. The best models of leadership focus on understanding the correct “purpose” of that system and how that influences the way people and work are managed (Scholtes 1998; Game et al. 2014). For example, priorities for an offshore island reserve are different to those for a wildlife corridor. Conservation recovery typically takes decades, yet conservation projects are often transient (Black et al. 2011), so although the future maybe unclear, conservation “purpose” must be enduring (i.e., “this programme exists to…”). Purpose guides our work today and tomorrow, our immediate priorities, our goals, our choices today, and our decisions for the future. A clear understanding of purpose is also a reference point for innovation and flexibility against the evolving demands of complex systems (Game et al. 2014). While there can be many visions (i.e., “what things will look like”) for a given purpose, there will be only one purpose for a given vision. A clear purpose will inform, test, and enable agreement on a relevant view of the future (from many possible permutations) to provide suitable direction. For example, black-footed ferret conservation in the 1990s focused on captive breeding and release of animals into sites in Wyoming, USA. Despite breeding successes which saved the species, few released ferrets survived and wild populations faltered; the vision was too limited and the purpose not delivered. Recognizing that habitat quality was critical, the vision was changed to include disease control, management of prey species, and land partnerships extending across eight states, plus Mexico and Canada (Black et al. 2011). The vision now engages a broader group of stakeholders and possibilities, but the purpose of conserving ferrets remains unchanged. While direction is important, understanding the underlying reason for a direction, its purpose, is paramount. Purpose is neither dependent nor solely identifiable with any one leader, so if the leader departs, the purpose of the work and the remaining team is unchanged. With a clear purpose in place, ego-driven or other value-laden perspectives are also less able to subvert more helpful commitments to species and ecosystems (Black & Copsey 2014). Furthermore, purposeful leaders avoid expending effort and resources on activities which do not deliver the principle focus of the program. Leaders set the tone through their behavior, goals, plans, vision, priorities, budgets, and performance measures (Black et al. 2011). All these elements should be guided by purpose; “how does this help us to… (conserve species and ecosystems)?” If conservation leaders make continued efforts to get this right, then the chances of success are improved.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».