Designatable Units for Status Assessment of Endangered Species
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
Abstract: Species status assessment and the conservation of biological diversity may require defining units below the species level to portray probabilities of extinction accurately and to help set priorities for conservation efforts. What those units should be has been debated in the scientific literature largely in terms of evolutionarily significant units (ESUs), but this discourse has had little impact on government policy with regard to status assessment. As with species concepts, the variously proposed ESU concepts have not been resolvable into a single approach. The need for a practicable procedure to identify infraspecific entities for status assignment is the motivation behind employing designatable units (DUs). In aid of a policy to prevent elements of biodiversity from becoming extinct or extirpated, DUs are determined during the process of resolving a species' conservation status according to broadly applicable guidelines. The procedure asks whether putative DUs are distinguishable based on a reliably established taxonomy or a well‐corroborated phylogeny, compelling evidence of genetic distinction, range disjunction, and/or biogeographic distinction as long as extinction probabilities also differ. The language of the DU approach avoids wording that implies value judgments concerning evolutionary importance or significance. Because species conservation status assessment is not science but, rather, the use of science to further policy, DUs contribute to a precautionary approach to listing whereby status may be assessed even though knowledge of systematic relationships below the species level may be lacking or unresolved. The pragmatic approach of using DUs has been adopted by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada for status assessment of species under the Canadian Species at Risk Act.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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