MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Climate change, biodiversity conservation and protected area planning in Canada

2005· article· en· W1983608031 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Christopher J. Lemieux, Daniel Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennes · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of WaterlooWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsBiomeEcoregionProtected areaClimate changeVegetation (pathology)Wilderness areaGeographyWildlifeNational parkBiodiversityEnvironmental resource managementWildernessIUCN protected area categoriesEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental scienceEcologyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For more than a decade, climate change has been identified as an important emerging issue for protected areas. Utilising outputs from two equilibrium global vegetation models (GVMs) forced with six climate‐change scenarios, this study assessed potential terrestrial biome‐type change in Canada's protected area network (2,979 national parks, national wildlife areas, migratory bird sanctuaries, Ramsar sites, ecological reserves, wilderness wildlife areas and provincial parks). Vegetation‐modelling results project that 37–48 percent of Canada's protected areas could experience a change in terrestrial biome type under doubled atmospheric carbon‐dioxide conditions. Park and protected area planning in Canada have traditionally been founded upon enduring‐feature analysis and ecoregion representation frameworks. These conservation‐planning frameworks are based on climatic and biogeographic stability; assumptions that what these modelling results for Canada's protected areas and other vegetation‐modelling studies indicate are untenable in an era of global climate change. Implications for protected area policy and planning in Canada are also discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.470

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.165 · 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 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

Citations86
Published2005
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geographies / Géographies canadiennesSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207