MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003425775 · doi:10.1080/08920750601169584

Perceptions of Diving Impacts and Implications for Reef Conservation

2007· article· en· W2003425775 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCoastal Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoral and Marine Ecosystems Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReefCoral reefFisheryPerceptionGeographyPsychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SCUBA diving can contribute to both coral reef degradation and conservation. Divers’ perceptions of these possible impacts were studied in Phuket, Thailand. The most endorsed impact of diving was a positive one: the educational impact on the divers. Impact perceptions changed after the dive. Perceptions of anchor damage and garbage disposal as negative impacts fell markedly. Following the trip liveaboard divers were more likely than day divers to see the impact of diving as positive. Almost 30% of divers witnessed perceived negative impacts on the reef by their dive group. Divers who saw damage were more likely to feel that diving has a negative impact on the reef than divers who did not see impacts. They were also more likely to take part in a reef conservation project. The results reinforce the potential for diving to be a positive force for reef conservation but indicate the need for greater investment in diver education.

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)0.000
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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.172

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.239 · 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