MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2901592007 · doi:10.1111/csp2.1

A vision for documenting and sharing knowledge in conservation

2019· article· en· W2901592007 sur OpenAlexaff
Mark W. Schwartz, Dyhia Belhabib, Duan Biggs, Carly N. Cook, James Fitzsimons, Anthony J. Giordano, Louise Glew, Sara Gottlieb, Gustavo H. Kattan, Andrew T. Knight, Carolyn J. Lundquist, Antony J. Lynam, Yuta J. Masuda, Tuyeni H. Mwampamba, Ana Nuño, Andrew J. Plumptre, Justina C. Ray, Sheila M. W. Reddy, Michael C. Runge

Notice bibliographique

RevueConservation Science and Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Établissements canadiensWildlife Conservation Society CanadaEntrust (Canada)Quest University Canada
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésConservation psychologyScholarshipCommitConservation scienceFraming (construction)Public relationsPolitical scienceSociologyEngineering ethicsConservation biologyEcologyEngineeringComputer scienceBiodiversity

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

As editors, we mark the launch of Conservation Science and Practice, a journal of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB), with the following remarks framing the purpose and aspirations of the journal. Our aim is to share scholarship on and experiences of the practice of conservation. We define conservation practice as the application of conservation principles or theory across conservation issues, from planning and directly managing nature to influencing public policy and private behaviors—at scales from local communities to international governing bodies. We are striving for Conservation Science and Practice to be a forum for sharing lessons learned from research and practice to reciprocally informing and improving both arenas. We commit to sharing this literature in the most accessible manner possible. Conservation Science and Practice establishes its niche within the standards of a scholarly journal. Conservation Science and Practice is a place where professionals, students, and volunteers involved in conservation initiatives can document and share knowledge gained through experience in areas like conservation planning, implementation activities, and evaluation of outcomes. Published articles will inform the research and practitioner communities of knowledge gaps and research advances, as well as share experiences and lessons learned on how conservation partnerships succeed or fail. Conservation Science and Practice will adhere to principles and codes of conduct of academic scholarship and the SCB. The journal acknowledges that the relationship between values, evidence, and practice is complex but places a strong emphasis on drawing conclusions based on evidence. Conservation Science and Practice will not be a platform to politicize conservation issues or advocate the values of individuals, agencies, or organizations. Conservation Science and Practice will strive for rapid publication, providing articles online immediately after accepted page proofs are ready. Monthly issues will comprise all articles accepted that month. Special issues on topics the editorial board deems of particular interest will be available. Article formats will include Contributed Papers, Reviews, and Perspectives articles, along with Practitioner Dispatches, an innovative forum of 1,300 words or less. Manuscript types and guidelines are available online. The journal will be published online only. Our commitment to promoting knowledge sharing and learning aims to overcome persistent cultural, institutional, professional, and socioeconomic barriers. Our editorial team is geographically, disciplinarily, professionally, and demographically diverse. Through this diversity, we aspire to strategically implement journal practices that make it as easy as possible for practitioners to share their knowledge in a peer-reviewed format, with one of our aims to bring peer review credibility to the considerable depth of knowledge that our community is accruing in addressing the world's conservation challenges. Our efforts to reduce barriers will also include strategies to reduce language barriers (e.g., optional native language abstracts). In particular, we seek to expand opportunities for practitioners and scientists from non-English-speaking or lower-income countries to contribute their experiences and insights. A writing mentorship program is being developed to support potential contributors seeking help in the presentation of their work in English or into a scientific writing style likely to pass technical review. We are also working to reduce logistical barriers. The common submission platform shared with our partner journals Conservation Biology and Conservation Letters allows manuscripts to be automatically transferred to Conservation Science and Practice for consideration if they are returned to authors because they do not meet the scope of the affiliated journals. Our commitment is to build the base of conservation scholarship and encourage submission of work about real-world, on-the-ground conservation work that might not otherwise be the subject of traditional academic scholarship. We, the Editorial Board, are excited to begin this journey with Conservation Science and Practice. In working to establish this journal, we have received huge support from the SCB leadership, sections and working groups, and membership. We have consulted with science leaders from some of the world's largest established conservation organizations and agencies, as well as a sample of smaller organizations operating at local scales, and found tremendous support for Conservation Science and Practice. We believe that this journal marks a cultural shift toward a widely accepted professional commitment to documenting and sharing knowledge that promotes learning and effectiveness. It is an honor and a privilege for us to help launch this new endeavor. Please join us in supporting Conservation Science and Practice to broaden and deepen our collective capacity for enhancing the science and practice of conserving nature.

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 machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,333
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,298
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: Théorique ou conceptuel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,333
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,822

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,3330,298
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0040,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0060,007
Bibliométrie0,0230,017
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0270,095
Communication savante0,0790,133
Science ouverte0,0200,078
Intégrité de la recherche0,0480,037
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0140,008

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,056
Tête enseignante GPT0,361
Écart entre enseignants0,305 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations22
Publié2019
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueConservation Science and PracticeMême sujetSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeTravaux en français237 207