Public Preference for Endemism over Other Conservation‐Related Species Attributes
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
Public preferences are likely to play an important role in prioritizing species at risk for conservation. We conducted a survey of British Columbians (Canada) (n =555, r =73%) to examine how the public ranks a species' attributes (rather than named species) with respect to conservation priority. Endemism, defined as species only or mainly occurring in British Columbia or species occurring in British Columbia and nowhere else in Canada, was considered the most important among the measured attributes. This preference was strongest among men and among respondents who had completed postsecondary education. The preference for endemism is generally consistent with science-based federal listings of British Columbian species. This congruence between listing and public opinion is welcome if such congruence is considered important. We suggest that investigating how much the public values species' attributes, as opposed to named species, provides a more efficient way of incorporating public opinion into policies on species at risk, especially if large numbers of species must be ranked for conservation priority.
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) | 0.003 | 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