MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1888713647 · doi:10.1139/z11-020

Flagship Species – Flagship Problems: recovery of species at risk and the conservation of biodiversity in Canada<sup>1</sup>This introduction is part of the virtual symposium “Flagship Species – Flagship Problems” that deals with ecology, biodiversity and management issues, and climate impacts on species at risk and of Canadian importance, including the polar bear (<i>Ursus maritimus</i>), Atlantic cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>), Piping Plover (<i>Charadrius melodus</i>), and caribou (<i>Rangifer tarandus</i>).

2011· article· en· W1888713647 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
J. Sherman Boates, M. Brock Fenton

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Zoology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityAcadia UniversityNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlagship speciesPloverBiologyCharadriusContext (archaeology)BiodiversityUmbrella speciesEcologyHabitatFisheryHabitat destructionEndangered species

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is an Introduction to a series of review articles, entitled Flagship Species – Flagship Problems, that identify, review, and address key problems, solutions, and contradictions linked to conservation and recovery of four iconic species at risk in Canada (polar bear, Ursus maritimus Phipps, 1774; Atlantic cod, Gadus morhua L., 1758; Piping Plover. Charadrius melodus Ord, 1824; caribou, Rangifer tarandus (L., 1758)), as well as one review article dealing with the more systemic impacts of habitat loss and degradation. The reviews are cast in the context of the broader challenge of maintaining and restoring biodiversity.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Zoology→Same topicIndigenous Studies and Ecology→French-language works237,207→