MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Corridors for Conservation: Integrating Pattern and Process

2006· article· en· W2107752902 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

VenueAnnual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersPeking University Third Hospital
KeywordsHabitatSelection (genetic algorithm)Identification (biology)Computer scienceLandscape connectivityProcess (computing)Wildlife corridorWildlifeResource (disambiguation)Landscape ecologyEnvironmental resource managementEcologyGeographyEnvironmental scienceArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corridors are commonly used to connect fragments of wildlife habitat, yet the identification of conservation corridors typically neglects processes of habitat selection and movement for target organisms. Instead, corridor designs often are based on binary patterns of habitat suitability. New technologies and analytical tools make it possible to better integrate landscape patterns with behavioral processes. We show how resource selection functions can be used to describe habitat suitability with continuous and multivariable metrics and review methods by which animal movement can be quantified, analyzed, and modeled. We then show how the processes of habitat selection and movement can be integrated with landscape features using least-cost paths, graph theory, and step selection functions. These tools offer new ways to design, implement, and study corridors as landscape linkages more objectively and holistically.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · 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