State of the interface between conservation and physiology: a bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary conservation science benefits from the perspectives of a variety of different disciplines, including a recent synergy with physiology, an interface known as 'conservation physiology'. To evaluate the degree of interaction between conservation and animal/plant physiology, we conducted three bibliometric analyses. We first pursued the use of the term 'conservation physiology' since its first definition in 2006 to determine how frequently it has been used and in which publications. Secondly, we evaluated the occurrence of conservation terms in animal and plant physiology journals, physiological terms in conservation journals, and a combination of terms in ecology journals. Thirdly, we explored trends in a subset of conservation physiology articles published between 2006 and 2012. We identified a surge in the use of the term 'conservation physiology' in 2012, after only a slow increase in usage between 2006 and 2011. Conservation journals tend to have been significantly more active in publishing conservation physiology than animal physiology, plant physiology or ecology journals. However, we found evidence that ecology and animal physiology journals began to incorporate more conservation physiology after 2006, while conservation- and plant physiology-themed journals did not. Among 299 conservation physiology articles that we identified, vertebrate taxa have been over-represented in conservation physiology compared with their relative taxonomic abundance, invertebrate taxa have been under-represented, and plants have been represented in proportion to their relative taxonomic abundance; however, those findings are reasonably consistent with publication trends in conservation biology. Diffuse distribution of conservation physiology papers throughout the literature may have been a barrier to the growth of the subdiscipline when the interface was emerging. The introduction of the focused journal Conservation Physiology in 2013 may address that deficiency. Moreover, development of a unifying framework could help to aggregate knowledge and attract potential contributors by highlighting and facilitating access to and application of conservation physiology.
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 | 0.021 | 0.110 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.186 | 0.263 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".