Protected Areas and Prospects for Endangered Species Conservation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reserve networks figure prominently in conservation strategies that aim to reduce extinction rates. We tested the effectiveness of the current reserve network at protecting species at risk in Canada, where relatively extensive wilderness areas remain. We compared numbers of terrestrial species at risk included in existing reserves to randomly generated networks with the same total area and number of reserves. Existing reserve networks rarely performed better than randomly selected areas and several included fewer endangered species than expected by chance, particularly in the most biologically imperiled regions. The extent of protected area and density of species at risk were unrelated at either broad (countrywide) or finer spatial scales (50 x 50 km grids), although there was a tendency for the most threatened regions of the country to have few or no protected areas (1.5% of areas with >30 endangered species were in reserves). Although reserves will play a useful role in conserving endangered species that occur within them, reducing extinction rates in a region with much of the world's remaining wilderness will require integrating conservation strategies with agricultural and urban land-use plans outside formally protected areas.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".