Strategic reserve design in the central coast of British Columbia: integrating ecological and industrial goals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few conservation reserves worldwide have been created in ways that are likely to promote the persistence of species, ecosystems, and ecological processes regarded as being representative of biological diversity. We demonstrate the application of newer approaches to systematic reserve design that could help stakeholders find designs that maximize simultaneously ecological, societal, and industrial goals. We created example reserve designs using the simulated annealing algorithm of SITES 1.0 and then contrasted these designs with a proposed reserve design negotiated as a multi stakeholder process for British Columbia's central coast. Our strategic approach recommended reserve designs that included greater proportions of key conservation elements identified by stakeholders without increasing the land area or timber volume in reserves currently under consideration for protection. Our examples demonstrate that strategic approaches to reserve design can facilitate the repeatable and efficient allocation of land to conservation and development and, therefore, represent an improvement on ad hoc methods. Readily available software facilitates the exploration of alternative conservation and societal values, incorporate the interests of multiple stakeholders, and provides a focus and catalyst for discussion at the planning table.
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 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 | 0.004 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".