MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2547335583 · doi:10.1017/s0376892916000400

Assessing ecosystem services in Neotropical dry forests: a systematic review

2016· review· en· W2547335583 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Conservation · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsProvisioningEcosystem servicesBiodiversityEnvironmental resource managementEcosystemSustainable managementEnvironmental scienceEcologyBusinessAgroforestryGeographyBiologySustainabilityComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY There is an increasing consensus on the importance of understanding ecosystem service (ES) provision in order to facilitate decision making and the sustainable management of Neotropical dry forests (NTDFs), yet research on the ESs provided by NTDFs is limited. We identified the main existing gaps and trends in the quantification of provisioning, regulating and supporting ESs in NTDFs. Systematic web-based searches showed that research has been increasing in recent decades in NTDFs, supporting greater ES knowledge and assessment. Carbon storage and biodiversity are the main subjects under study, while ESs relating to water and soil lack investigation. The most common approaches for assessing ES were fauna and plant inventories, carbon dynamics and ecological processes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.236 · 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