MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Threats to Endangered Species in Canada

2006· article· en· W2168416079 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueBioScience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConcordia University
KeywordsOverexploitationEndangered speciesThreatened speciesWildlifeHabitat destructionHabitatUmbrella speciesGeographyEcologyVulnerable speciesConservation-dependent speciesIUCN Red ListBiodiversityCritically endangeredBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We quantified the threats facing 488 species in Canada, categorized by COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada) as extinct, extirpated, endangered, threatened, or of special concern. Habitat loss is the most prevalent threat (84%), followed by overexploitation (32%), native species interactions (31%), natural causes (27%), pollution (26%), and introduced species (22%). Agriculture (46%) and urbanization (44%) are the most common human activities causing habitat loss and pollution. For extant species, the number of threats per species increases with the level of endangerment. The prevalence of threat types varies among major habitats, with overexploitation being particularly important, and introduced species particularly unimportant, for marine species. Introduced species are a much less important threat in Canada than in the United States, but the causes of endangerment are broadly similar for Canadian and globally endangered species.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it