MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W276009079 · doi:10.5751/es-00444-060215

The Influence of the Academic Conservation Biology Literature on Endangered Species Recovery Planning

2002· article· en· W276009079 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John R. Stinchcombe, Leonie C. Moyle, Brian R. Hudgens, Philip L. Bloch, Sathya K. Chinnadurai, William F. Morris

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Ecology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEndangered speciesConservation biologyEcologyBiologyEnvironmental ethicsHabitatPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stinchcombe, J., L. C. Moyle, B. R. Hudgens, P. L. Bloch, S. Chinnadurai and W. F. Morris 2002. The Influence of the Academic Conservation Biology Literature on Endangered Species Recovery Planning. Conservation Ecology 6(2):15. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-00444-060215

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)0.111
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.370
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1110.370
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0290.032
Science and technology studies0.0060.015
Scholarly communication0.0180.013
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.002

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

Study designObservational
DomainEvaluation
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

Citations37
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation EcologySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207