MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2602244483 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001656

Antarctica and the strategic plan for biodiversity

2017· article· en· W2602244483 on OpenAlexaff
Steven L. Chown, Cassandra M. Brooks, Aleks Terauds, Céline Le Bohec, Céline van Klaveren-Impagliazzo, Jason D. Whittington, Stuart H. M. Butchart, Bernard W. T. Coetzee, Ben Collen, Peter Convey, Kevin J. Gaston, Neil Gilbert, Mike Gill, Robert Höft, Sam Johnston, Mahlon C. Kennicutt, Hannah Joy Kriesell, Yvon Le Maho, Heather J. Lynch, Maria Lourdes D. Palomares, Roser Puig-Marcó, Peter Stoett, Mélodie A. McGeoch

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPolar Research and Ecology
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaGovernment of Canada
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilCentre Scientifique de MonacoScientific Committee on Antarctic ResearchMonash UniversitySight Research UKGobierno del Principado de Asturias
KeywordsBiodiversityConvention on Biological DiversityScope (computer science)BiologyAction planStrategic planningPlan (archaeology)Environmental resource managementEnvironmental planningEcologyBusinessGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity, adopted under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity, provides the basis for taking effective action to curb biodiversity loss across the planet by 2020-an urgent imperative. Yet, Antarctica and the Southern Ocean, which encompass 10% of the planet's surface, are excluded from assessments of progress against the Strategic Plan. The situation is a lost opportunity for biodiversity conservation globally. We provide such an assessment. Our evidence suggests, surprisingly, that for a region so remote and apparently pristine as the Antarctic, the biodiversity outlook is similar to that for the rest of the planet. Promisingly, however, much scope for remedial action exists.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations107
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicPolar Research and EcologyFrench-language works237,207