MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1568266991 · doi:10.5860/choice.48-2052

Arguments for protected areas: multiple benefits for conservation and use

2010· article· en· W1568266991 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueChoice Reviews Online · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAquatic Ecosystems and Biodiversity
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Foreword: Arguments for Protected Areas 1. Protected Areas: Linking Environment and Well-Being 2. Vital Sites: Protected Areas Supporting Health and Recreation Case study 2.1: Protecting Medicinal Resources in Colombia Case Study 2.2: Parks Victoria (Australia) 'Healthy Parks Healthy People Initiative' 3. Running Pure: Protected Areas Maintaining Purity and Quantity of Urban Water Supplies Case Study 3.1: Protecting Water Supplies to Caracas, Venezuela 4. Food Stores: Protected Areas Conserving Crop Wild Relatives and Securing Future Food Stocks Case Study 4.1: Crop Genetic Diversity Protection in Turkey Case Study 4.2: Conservation of Endangered CWRs in Mexico s Sierra de Manantl n 5. Nursery Tails: Protected Areas Conserving Wild Marine and Freshwater Fish Stocks Case Study 5.1: Freshwater Fishery Sustainability in Lake Malawi, East Africa Case Study 5.2: Managing and Monitoring Success: The Story of Tubbataha Reefs, Philippines 6. Natural Security: Protected Areas and Hazard Mitigation Case Study 6.1: Environmental Degradation and The Indian Ocean Tsunami of 2004 Case Study 6.2: Restoration and Protection Plan to Reduce Flooding in the Lower Danube 7. Safety Net: Protected Areas Contributing to Human Well-Being Case Study 7.1: Population-Health-Environment Approaches in Kiunga Marine National Reserve, Kenya 8. Beyond Belief: Linking Faiths and Protected Areas to Support Biodiversity Conservation Case Study 8.1: The Ancient Sacred Natural Sites in Al Hoceima National Park, Morocco 9. Living Traditions: Protected Areas and Cultural Diversity Case Study 9.1: Angkor Wat Protected Landscape: Where Culture, Nature and Spirit Meet Case Study 9.2: Inuit Partnerships in the Torngat Mountains National Park, Canada 10. Diverting Places: Linking Travel, Pleasure and Protection Case Study 10.1: Managing Tourism in South Korea s Protected Area System 11. Climate Change: The Role of Protected Areas in Mitigating and Adapting to Change Case Study 11.1: Protected Areas Helping to Reduce Carbon Emissions in Brazil Britaldo Silveira 12. Making Peace: Protected Areas Contributing to Conflict Resolution Case Study 12.1: La Amistad Binational Biosphere Reserve in Costa Rica and Panama 13. Nature Conservation: Leaving Space for Biodiversity Case Study 13.1: One Hundred Years of Conservation Success at Kaziranga National Park, India 14. Precious Places: Getting the Arguments Right Index

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.696
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.219 · 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