MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059317971 · doi:10.1002/aqc.429

Use of focal species in marine conservation and management: a review and critique

2001· review· en· W2059317971 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

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal plant biology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbundance (ecology)Cardinal pointEnvironmental resource managementComposition (language)Indicator speciesNatural (archaeology)EcologyGeographyBiologyEnvironmental scienceHabitatOpticsPhilosophyPhysicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract 1. Focal species (i.e. indicators, keystones, umbrellas, and flagships) have been advocated for the management and conservation of natural environments. 2. The assumption has been that the presence or abundance of a focal species is a means to understanding the composition and/or state of the more complex community. 3. We review the characteristics of focal species, and evaluate their appropriateness and utility judged against conservation objectives. 4. It appears that indicator species (of both composition and condition) may be of greatest general utility, and that several types of focal species may exhibit useful indicator properties. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.982
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.197 · 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