MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A STARTING POINT FOR BIODIVERSITY LITERATURE

2000· article· en· W2080203349 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Field

Bibliographic record

VenueDiversity and Distributions · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsListing (finance)Subject (documents)BiodiversityRelevance (law)Reading (process)Quarter (Canadian coin)HistoryWonderPoint (geometry)Library scienceGenealogyGeographyComputer scienceEcologyBiologyArchaeologyLawPolitical scienceMathematicsEpistemologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Smith, C.H. ( 2000 ) Biodiversity studies: a bibliographic review . Scarecrow Press, Inc. , Lanham, Maryland . xiii + 459 pp, two bibliographies, three indices. Hardback: Price US$69.50. ISBN 0 810 83754 4 . This book is an attempt to document the literature on biodiversity. It is organized into two bibliographies: one listing 5714 papers and monographs (but, importantly, it omits most papers from edited collections), and one listing 166 special issues of serial publications. To support these bibliographies are three indices: general, by geographical region, and by ‘organism-centred subject’. The book is easy to use, interesting, informative and fun; but as one browses through it, one finds many inconsistencies, idiosyncrasies and uncertainties. The book appears to cover all work published before 1999 (particularly 1986–98), but there are some glaring omissions for 1998, and I wonder how complete the coverage is for that year. At the other end of the chronology, there is a useful listing of pre-1950 works. While this is interesting, coverage of such early work is patchy — for instance, Alexander von Humboldt does not feature in the book. Such an omission can only be partially explained by the authors’ admission that the works included are primarily those written in English. Sometimes one wonders what criteria the author used for inclusion of publications. I came across several papers which I know well, that have little to do with biodiversity. Other works, which are of direct relevance, are not listed — including about a quarter of the pre-1999 references on the biodiversity reading lists that I give to undergraduates. Similarly, there are many omissions of works from the indices, which are highly appropriate to the relevant term. However, the degree of cross-referencing is such that, if one looks up a number of related terms in the indices, on any given subject, one is likely to find most of the relevant works. One of the best features of this book is the bibliometric ratings. The works are scored according to their citation history (and, for monologues, their library holdings and review history). At a glance, one can therefore get some idea of how influential the work has been. This is very useful and interesting; and it provokes thought about why some excellent works have had such little influence (and vice-versa). In the bibliographies, many of the entries include useful ‘added terms’ and short annotations, which give information not obvious from the works’ titles. However, I think that the book would have benefited from greater usage of the keywords listed in journals. Overall, I think that this book is a good introductory documentation of the biodiversity literature, and I (along with many others) will find it very useful in the near future. However, one should bear in mind that it does not provide comprehensive coverage, and is already somewhat out of date. This sort of work is perhaps more suited to being a web or CD-ROM resource (allowing frequent updating and much more information about each listed publication) than a book.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.008
Science and technology studies0.0070.010
Scholarly communication0.0150.037
Open science0.0030.013
Research integrity0.0090.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.020

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiversity and DistributionsSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207