Towards systematic conservation planning adapted to the local flow of ecosystem services
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
Ecosystem services (ES) are increasingly included in conservation assessment worldwide to sustain their ability to fulfill human needs. Due to the instrumental value inherent in ES, priority areas for their conservation should be selected based on their capacity to both ensure an available supply and meet beneficiary demands. However, such a methodology has yet to be developed. Aiming to adapt systematic conservation planning procedures to include ES, we conducted a case study in eastern Canada focusing on ten ES for 16 wetland types. We first delimited the ES supply accessible for human use from the total biophysical supply and mapped demand for each ES. Secondly, we assembled conservation networks targeting the accessible supply and demand and compared them with networks targeting either ES biophysical supply or accessible supply. We found that targeting only ES supply resulted in selecting sites that are not in demand and may be up to three times less efficient in fulfilling the demands of beneficiaries for local flow ES. Thus, not considering demand in ES conservation assessment fails to position reserves where ES supply is likely to be most useful. Setting conservation targets for ES supply and demand could therefore help to achieve ES conservation objectives.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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