MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2508573573 · doi:10.1002/aqc.2638

Achieving Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 to improve the performance of protected areas and conserve freshwater biodiversity

2016· article· en· W2508573573 on OpenAlexaff
Diego Juffe‐Bignoli, Ian Harrison, Stuart H. M. Butchart, Rebecca Flitcroft, Virgilio Hermoso, Harry Jonas, Anna Lukasiewicz, Michele Thieme, Eren Turak, Heather Bingham, James Dalton, William Darwall, Marine Deguignet, Nigel Dudley, Royal C. Gardner, Jonathan Higgins, Ritesh Kumar, Simon Linke, G. Randy Milton, Jamie Pittock, Kevin G. Smith, Arnout van Soesbergen

Bibliographic record

VenueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsNova Scotia Department of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityConvention on Biological DiversityMeasurement of biodiversityFreshwater ecosystemEnvironmental resource managementAquatic biodiversity researchEnvironmental planningEcosystem servicesGlobal biodiversityEcosystemAction planGeographyBusinessEnvironmental scienceEcologyBiodiversity conservationBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity (2011–2020), adopted at the 10th meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, sets 20 Aichi Biodiversity Targets to be met by 2020 to address biodiversity loss and ensure its sustainable and equitable use. Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 describes what an improved conservation network would look like for marine, terrestrial and inland water areas, including freshwater ecosystems. To date, there is no comprehensive assessment of what needs to be achieved to meet Target 11 for freshwater biodiversity. Reports on implementation often fail to consider explicitly freshwater ecosystem processes and habitats, the pressures upon them, and therefore the full range of requirements and actions needed to sustain them. Here the current progress and key gaps for meeting Aichi Target 11 are assessed by exploring the implications of each of its clauses for freshwater biodiversity. Concerted action on Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 for freshwater biodiversity by 2020 is required in a number of areas: a robust baseline is needed for each of the clauses described here at national and global scales; designation of new protected areas or expansion of existing protected areas to cover known areas of importance for biodiversity and ecosystem services, and a representative sample of biodiversity; use of Other Effective Area‐Based Conservation Measures (OECMs) in places where designating a protected area is not appropriate; and promoting and implementing better management strategies for fresh water in protected areas that consider its inherent connectivity, contextual vulnerability, and required human and technical capacity. Considering the specific requirements of freshwater systems through Aichi Biodiversity Target 11 has long‐term value to the Sustainable Development Goals discussions and global conservation policy agenda into the coming decades. Copyright © 2016 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 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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
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 score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0050.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.004

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.175
Teacher spread0.166 · 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

Citations96
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater EcosystemsSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207