Evaluating the representation of ecological features in a protected area network: A Gap Analysis study of the Yukon
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
A gap analysis study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of the protected area network in the Yukon Territory, based on the degree of representation of key ecological features. Protected area (PA) networks that are representative of the ecology over a large region are considered desirable for conservation; however, representative PA networks are challenging to achieve because ecological gaps often exist in the PA network. Ecological gaps signify conservation shortfalls, which weaken the overall success of the PA network. To determine if gaps were present in the Yukon’s PA network, five geographic information systems datasets were obtained from a variety of sources, in order to be processed in the gap analysis study of the Yukon. A comparison index method was employed to evaluate the representation of ecological features from three of the datasets: ecoregions, landcover and wildlife key areas. In addition, two human disturbance datasets, roads and communities, were used to assess the human footprint across the landscape. The results illustrated that the human footprint in the Yukon was generally minor; however, the region surrounding the city of Whitehorse was found to have the highest level of human disturbance. Areas which were disturbed by humans were considered unfavourable for conservation purposes, while regions relatively devoid of human impacts were considerably more desirable. Regions which displayed low levels of representation of ecological features were also ecologically desirable because these areas represented gaps in the Yukon’s PA network. Of the 57 ecological features used in this gap analysis study, 51% were not well represented by the current PA network, which highlights that there were substantial ecological gaps. The most prominent gaps were located in the southeast, central-west and northeast portions of the Yukon. Less critical gaps were prevalent throughout central Yukon. The findings also identified which ecological features were inadequately represented.
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 | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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 ».