MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068323640 · doi:10.1017/s0376892901000200

Ecosystem structure, economic cycles and market-oriented conservation

2001· article· en· W2068323640 on OpenAlex
Carolyn Crook, Roger Alex Clapp

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

VenueEnvironmental Conservation · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcosystem servicesNatural resource economicsPromotion (chess)BiodiversityBiodiversity conservationBusinessEconomicsEcosystemEnvironmental resource managementEcologyPolitical scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Whether market-oriented conservation, by which we mean the promotion of markets for the products of intact ecosystems, protects biodiversity, and under what conditions, has been a subject of much research and debate. Our evaluation of three strategies of the market-oriented use of natural resources led us to conclude that, at least for these three strategies, market-oriented mechanisms of conservation are often socially, economically, or ecologically unsustainable, and that proposals for market-oriented conservation should be approached with caution (Crook & Clapp 1998). Shackleton's (2001) critique and extension of the conditions for market-oriented conservation offers many useful insights, although we question some of his interpretations. Herein we examine some of those extensions, and revisit the criteria for successful market-oriented conservation.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

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)0.0060.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.172
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