MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reducing threats to species: threat reversibility and links to industry

2010· article· en· W1500797807 on OpenAlexaffabout
Laura R. Prugh, A. R. E. Sinclair, Karen E. Hodges, Aerin L. Jacob, David S. Wilcove

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Letters · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHarmPrioritizationBusinessEnvironmental resource managementExtinction (optical mineralogy)Scale (ratio)Risk analysis (engineering)Environmental planningNatural resource economicsComputer scienceGeographyEnvironmental scienceEconomicsBiologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Threats to species’ persistence are typically mitigated via lengthy and costly recovery planning processes that are implemented only after species are at risk of extinction. To reduce overall threats and minimize risks to species not yet imperiled, a proactive and broad‐scale framework is needed. Using data on threats to imperiled species in Canada to illustrate our approach, we link threats to industries causing the harm, thus providing regulators with quantitative data that can be used directly in cost‐benefit and risk analyses to broadly reduce threat levels. We then show how ranking the ease of threat abatement and reversal assists prioritization by identifying threats that are easiest to mitigate as well as threats that are possible to abate but nearly impossible to reverse. This new framework increases the usefulness of widely available threat data for preventative conservation and species recovery.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations52
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation LettersSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207