Comparative assessment of scoring methods to evaluate the conservation value of pond and small lake biodiversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Fresh waters are among the most endangered ecosystems in the world. Practical tools to measure their biodiversity value are needed for their effective conservation. Besides species richness, other aspects of biodiversity, including the threat level of species also need to be considered. Currently, existing scoring methods for assessing the conservation value of freshwater fauna and flora assemblages are varied, and guidelines to select an appropriate method are lacking. In this paper, it is hypothesized that scores to assess the conservation value of assemblages can vary markedly according to the type of method used. To test this, four types of scoring methods were applied differing in the weight given to Red List categories and in the expression of the score, i.e. either using mean per species or the assemblage as a whole, on sets of dragonfly and macrophyte data collected from varied types of small lakes and ponds in three different countries (France, Switzerland and South Africa). The comparison of the different types of methods showed that the type of method used had a marked impact on the assessment of the conservation value of a water body: the expression per species or per assemblage as the weight given to Red List categories changed the value of a given water body. Overall, results also confirmed that the different types of methods could be applicable in different geographical areas and types of standing water bodies, independently of the original area where the method was developed. Results illustrated that, besides the species richness assessment commonly used, calculating conservation value as a mean per species is useful because it provides additional information. Overall, using methods expressed as a mean per species and coupling the Red List with other criteria gave the best performance. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.015 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".