Mangroves: A Threatened Ecosystem Under-Utilized as a Resource for Scientific Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nearly half of the global population lives within 150 km of a coastline, placing mangrove forests under incessant anthropogenic pressure. The mangrove ecosystem is one of the most productive ecosystems on the globe, despite being one of the most threatened. The land area covered by the mangrove ecosystem has been reduced by more than half in the last 40 years. This work evaluated the international scientific production of articles focusing on mangroves, connecting the current lack of knowledge with the observed rapid mangrove degradation rates. The Antarctic and Coral Reef ecosystems were used as comparative environments, and this paper found that in the past century, mangrove forests have not attracted the same level of worldwide scientific attention or interest. This lack of research on mangroves is primarily shared by the countries that contain large mangrove land areas, such as Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia and Mexico. Increasing our knowledge of mangrove forests through scientific research could help preserve this valuable ecosystem by increasing public awareness and driving new policies and protection arrangements. This important ecosystem, with its rich biodiversity, bio-technological potential and related ecological and social benefits, must be saved on a global scale.
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 | 0.009 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".