MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1561322135 · doi:10.22230/jem.2011v12n1a89

A Vulnerability-Based Strategy for Incorporating the Climate Threat in Conservation Planning: A Case Study from the British Columbia Central Interior

2011· article· en· W1561322135 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Timothy G. F. Kittel, Sara Grace Howard, Hannah L Horn, Gwen Kittel, Matthew Fairbarns, Pierre Iachetti

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Ecosystems and Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsNature Conservancy of Canada
FundersMinistry of EnvironmentMinistry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations
KeywordsVulnerability (computing)Climate changeEnvironmental resource managementContext (archaeology)Vulnerability assessmentGeographyAdaptive capacityEnvironmental planningEnvironmental scienceEcologyComputer sciencePsychological resilience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present a vulnerability-based approach for considering climate as a threat in regional conservation planning. The protocol is based on best available understanding of the climate sensitivity of species and systems of concern, has little reliance on climate or ecological change scenarios, and can be executed rapidly. This approach has advantages of (1) not being tied to environmental scenarios with high uncertainty and (2) generating ‘no regrets’ strategies for planning for climate in the context of other threats. The approach was implemented in an ecoregional assessment of the British Columbia Central Interior. Regional strategies to reduce climate vulnerability were applied to set conservation targets and goals in the site-selection process. These had a wide-ranging impact on both freshwater and terrestrial conservation assessments. Selection of high-priority areas based on climate strategies generally (1) increased the number, size, and connectivity of selected areas, (2) included and expanded on areas selected using standard protocols, (3) drew more on moderately favorable areas, and (4) showed similar outcomes for different parts of the domain, but with some selection bias to more northern areas and higher reaches of drainages. These planning outcomes adhere to the ‘no regrets’ goal—enhancing the adaptive capacity of species and systems to multiple threats while taking heed of a climate threat. The resulting plan sets the regional stage for on-the-ground climate-wise strategies by providing for larger, less fragmented, and more connected conservation sites and with restoration as a complementary strategy to reduce ecosystem vulnerability.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Ecosystems and ManagementSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207