The changing landscape of conservation science funding in the United States
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To understand the changing role of funding sources in shaping conservation science in the United States, we analyzed acknowledgments from published studies, trends in research funding, and survey responses from conservation scientists. Although the U.S. federal government was the most frequently acknowledged source of support overall, U.S. foundations and NGOs were the predominant sources for tropical and socioeconomic research. Acknowledgments of foundation support for conservation research increased over the last two decades, while recognition of federal funds declined. Concordant trends in funding and acknowledgments indicated a changing landscape for conservation science, in which federal support has not kept pace with the growth in conservation research efforts or needs. Survey responses from conservation scientists about their funding sources were consistent with acknowledgment data, and most (64%) indicated that shifts in funding sources and amounts affected the type of research they conduct. Ongoing changes in the funding landscape shape the direction of conservation research and may make conservation science more vulnerable to economic recessions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it