MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2418605012 · doi:10.1071/pcv22n2_ed

Thinking globally, acting locally – conservation lessons from Oceania

2016· article· en· W2418605012 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vanessa M. Adams, Rebecca Spindler, Richard T. Kingsford

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Conservation Biology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDiversity (politics)BiodiversityGeographyHabitat destructionHabitatBiodiversity hotspotQuarter (Canadian coin)Project commissioningAction (physics)EcologyPolitical sciencePublishingBiologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oceania is a diverse region encompassing Australia, Melanesia, Micronesia, New Zealand and Polynesia, with six of the world's 39 hotspots of diversity but a poor record for extinctions from widespread threats to biodiversity. The region is also culturally diverse, containing close to a quarter of the world's languages and some of the oldest cultures. This makes the region a priority for immediate and sustained conservation action. In this special issue we provide local conservation solutions in Oceania to global problems, capturing the diversity of nations, cultures and environments. The issue is organised by the major threats faced in the region: habitat loss, over exploitation and invasive species. Case studies, framed as coupled problem-solutions, include examples from Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific and contrast findings across regions and realms. There are successes and failures faced by conservation in this local region, and the analysis within this special issue offers lessons for conservation globally.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0080.022
Scholarly communication0.0110.014
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific Conservation BiologySame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207