Frameworks for marine conservation — non‐hierarchical approaches and distinctive habitats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Conservation efforts have traditionally been directed to ‘flagship’ species (whales, seals, migratory birds, etc.) that capture public attention. Often these flagship species occupy distinctive habitats. Distinctive habitats appear to be distinguished because of anomalous physical structures and unique oceanographic processes occurring within them, whereas representative habitats are not notable in this way. Distinctive habitats are found in areas of various physical anomalies described primarily by temperature, chlorophyll and topography. Several different kinds of distinctive habitats can be defined by their anomalous physical structures and oceanographic and biological processes. Species diversity may be either higher or lower in distinctive than in representative habitats. Distinctive habitats predominantly belong to a class of environments called ‘ergoclines’, and are typically associated with elevated resources at some ‘trophic level’. These elevated resources may be either the product of true production (i.e. they are generated (in situ), or they are the product of physical accumulation due to circulation mechanisms. These processes lie at the heart of the ecology of distinctive habitats, and are fundamental to maintenance of ecosystem health, ecological integrity, distributions, abundances and recruitment of species, patterns of animal migrations, and potential or actual fisheries yields. Conservation strategies need to examine the relationships between distinctive and representative habitats and species diversity. A strategy, leading from studies on flagship or other focal species, could have several advantages. It should rejuvenate the inherent appeal and significance of ‘species’ approaches to marine conservation, provide a rationale for human interest and a new foundation for examination of marine ecological interactions. It would also require a novel synthesis of relationships between ‘species’ and ‘spaces’ approaches to marine conservation by asking how we can take the best advantage of both approaches, rather than seeing them as in conflict. Copyright © 2002 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 | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".