Scale and Sustainability of Marine Bioprospecting for Pharmaceuticals
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Collecting marine organisms for the discovery and development of pharmaceuticals has been perceived variously as sustaining and threatening conservation. Our initial expectations that marine bioprospecting might pose conservation challenges were largely not confirmed. Thousands of marine species have been collected for initial assessment, but usually only in very small amounts. Very few compounds are sufficiently promising to provoke re-collections, where volumes can be much larger. This is where conservation concerns may arise, particularly if the organism is rare, has a restricted distribution, or is targeted in one narrow area. However, industry generally seeks to avoid dependency on small populations, for economic as well as ecological reasons. Alternative supply strategies to wild capture include synthesis and culture. Mandatory collection protocols and environmental impact (stock) assessments are useful routes for management to achieve sustainable use where extraction is desirable. In general, the scanty information available suggests that marine bioprospecting for pharmaceuticals may have minimal impacts on the environment, particularly compared with those created by other pressures.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it