MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2780490974 · doi:10.1080/11956860.2017.1414664

Landscape indicators of the success of protected areas on habitat recovery for the Golden Lion Tamarin (<i>Leontopithecus rosalia</i>)

2017· article· en· W2780490974 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ivana Cola Valle, Márcio Rocha Francelino, Elisa Hardt, Helena Saraiva Koenow Pinheiro

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGoverno BrasilCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsHabitatGeographyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since 1974, conservation efforts to protect an endangered species, the Golden Lion Tamarin (GLT), have led to the creation of the first strict nature reserve in Brazil ‒ the Poço das Antas Biological Reserve (REBIO) ‒ and the subsequent creation of the Environmental Protection Area of the Sao Joao River Basin, for sustainable use. This paper assesses the influence of Protected Areas (PA) creation and conservation programs on GLT habitat. Landscape metrics based on aerial photographs taken from three different periods are used to assess habitat conditions for this species through time. We analyzed the availability and potential quality of habitat in the years following the creation of the REBIO, comparing with its buffer zone and population rates correlations. We observed different trends in landscape dynamics between the REBIO, where most of the forest recovery occurred, and its buffer zone, where habitat loss was recorded. In general, the results showed an increase of continuous forest patches. The conservation/regeneration processes in the buffer zone have intensified in recent years. Comparisons over time, especially with respect to forest core areas and large patches, are valuable tools to assess landscape suitability for GLT survival at different spatial scales.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.445

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207