Conservation of Piping Plover (<i>Charadrius melodus</i>) in North America: science, successes, and challenges<sup>1</sup>This review is part of the virtual symposium “Flagship Species – Flagship Problems” that deals with ecology, biodiversity and management issues, and climate impacts on species at risk and of Canadian importance, including the polar bear (<i>Ursus maritimus</i>), Atlantic cod (<i>Gadus morhua</i>), Piping Plover (<i>Charadrius melodus</i>), and caribou (<i>Rangifer tarandus</i>).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are only about 8000 Piping Plovers ( Charadrius melodus Ord, 1834) in existence. Because they depend on environments that are under intense human pressures and controls in both their breeding and wintering grounds, these birds and their habitats are highly managed in many areas across their range. Efforts to recover this endangered and threatened species have engaged thousands of people from Newfoundland to the Caribbean, and have provoked a ground-swell of public support and, at times, fury, as well as a considerable body of research. Although populations have increased substantially in the U.S. Atlantic and U.S. Great Lakes, this is not true of all regions. Significant issues still exist with respect to the efficacy of predator management; need for more accurate model input information; effects of climate, pollutants, and water management; habitat loss and degradation from recreation and development; and whether the cost and effort of management for this species can be maintained or increased where needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".