Conservation physiology across scales: insights from the marine realm
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the field of conservation physiology develops and becomes increasingly integrated with ecology and conservation science, the fundamental concept of scale is being recognized as important, particularly for ensuring that physiological knowledge is contextualized in a manner most relevant to policy makers, conservation practitioners and stakeholders. Failure to consider the importance of scale in conservation physiology-both the challenges and the opportunities that it creates-will impede the ability of this discipline to generate the scientific understanding needed to contribute to meaningful conservation outcomes. Here, we have focused on five aspects of scale: biological, spatial, temporal, allometric and phylogenetic. We also considered the scale of policy and policy application relevant to those five types of scale as well as the merits of upscaling and downscaling to explore and address conservation problems. Although relevant to all systems (e.g. freshwater, terrestrial) we have used examples from the marine realm, with a particular emphasis on fishes, given the fact that there is existing discourse regarding scale and its relevance for marine conservation and management. Our synthesis revealed that all five aspects of scale are relevant to conservation physiology, with many aspects inherently linked. It is apparent that there are both opportunities and challenges afforded by working across scales but, to understand mechanisms underlying conservation problems, it is essential to consider scale of all sorts and to work across scales to the greatest extent possible. Moreover, given that the scales in biological processes will often not match policy and management scales, conservation physiology needs to show how it is relevant to aspects at different policy/management scales, change the scales at which policy/management intervention is applied or be prepared to be ignored.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".