Hummingbird Conservation in Mexico: The Natural Protected Areas System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hummingbirds represent an avian family restricted to the Americas that feeds mainly on nectar obtained from ornithophilous plants. In North America (Mexico-USA-Canada), 58 species have been reported out of the 330 total hummingbird species, all of them occurring in Mexico. In this work we analyzed the distribution of hummingbirds in relation to the coverage of the natural protected area system in Mexico using a complementarity analysis to assess the minimum set of areas needed to protect all species. We focused our search mainly to biosphere reserves, as these areas have complete bird lists. Six biosphere reserves included 93% of the hummingbird species. Four species were not included in any biosphere reserve or other natural protected area. To preserve those species, three important bird areas (AICAs as they are known in Spanish) are needed. With these nine areas, all hummingbird species are included. Hummingbird distributions can be classified in six groups that distribute following the major biogeographic regions described for Mexico, including groups using; (1) the main mountain ranges, (2) the Pacific tropical dry forests, (3) the Gulf of Mexico slopes with tropical dry forest, (4) the humid tropical forest in southern Mexico, and both (5) Yucatan and (6) Baja California peninsulas.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".