A study into marine landscapes applied to habitat mapping
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In recent years there have been many new seabed-mapping programmes carried out around the \nworld using the latest data acquisition techniques. The need for these maps is driven by the \nrecognition that an ecosystem-based approach to the management of national Exclusive \nEconomic Zones (EEZs), as required by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) adopted \nat the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, requires both detailed bathymetry and maps of the physical \nproperties of the sea floor. \nIn Europe, the implementation of the CBD is through the Habitats and Birds Directives, which \nrequire the identification of Special Areas of Conservation (SACs) and Special Protected Areas \n(SPAs). A network of SACs and SPAs will be set up across Europe known as Natura 2000. In \naddition, the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas has developed the concept of \nthe ecosystem-based approach in the context of fisheries management, subsequently adopted by \nthe European Union in its review of the Common Fisheries Policy; the World Wildlife Fund for \nNatures’ marine policy has developed the concept of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs); the \nOSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic is \nalso working to promote networks of MPAs and Ecological Quality Objectives (EcoQOs). \nIn the UK, the Department of Environment, Fisheries and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) major reports \non Marine Stewardship,’ Safeguarding our Seas: A Strategy for the Conservation and \nSustainable Development of our Marine Environment’ published in 2002 and followed by a \nconsultation paper ‘ Seas of Change’, form the basis for developing a practical application of the \necosystem-based approach. The DEFRA Review of Marine Nature Conservation (RMNC) \nproduced an interim report in 2001, which recommended that a pilot scheme at a regional scale \nto test a proposed framework for nature conservation. This has led to the Irish Sea Pilot Study \nmanaged by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), which has adopted the concept \nof ‘marine landscapes’, first developed in Canadian waters, based on geophysical features \nrecognising that their importance in determining the nature of biological communities. \nAs a result of these national and international initiatives, a number of habitat classification \nschemes have been introduced in different parts of the world. Since 2001, a group of geologists \nwith interests in the application of geological data to habitat mapping have met each year to \npresent their views and mapping programmes and to discuss their ideas with scientists from other \ndisciplines, mainly biologists and oceanographers. The GeoHab (Geological Mapping of \nHabitats for Marine Resources and Management) group have provided the impetus for this \nreview of BGS geological data in the context of habitat mapping classification schemes, and \nproposes ways in which our BGS data may be applied automatically, within a Geographical \nInformation System, to the selection of relevant sources of information.
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 | 0,022 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,012 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,008 |
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.
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; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».