MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<b>The status of Nepal’s mammals</b>

2018· article· en· W2793224655 on OpenAlexaff
Rajan Amin, Hem Sagar Baral, Babu Ram Lamichhane, Laxman Prasad Poudyal, Samantha Lee, Shant Raj Jnawali, Krishna Prasad Acharya, Gopal Prasad Upadhyaya, Megh Bahadur Pandey, Rinjan Shrestha, D. P. Joshi, Janine Griffiths, Ambika Prasad Khatiwada, Naresh Subedi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Threatened Taxa · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsWorld Wildlife Fund Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThreatened speciesIUCN Red ListEndangered speciesMammalNear-threatened speciesHabitat destructionCritically endangeredConservation statusGeographyConvention on Biological DiversityWildlifeConservation-dependent speciesEcologyExtinction (optical mineralogy)Data deficientBiodiversityBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objectives of the Nepal National Mammal Red Data Book (RDB) were to provide comprehensive and up-to-date accounts of 212 mammal species recorded in Nepal, assess their status applying the IUCN Guidelines at Regional Levels, identify threats and recommend the most practical measures for their conservation. It is hoped that the Mammal RDB will help Nepal achieve the Convention on Biological Diversity target of preventing the extinction of known threatened species and improving their conservation status. Of the 212 mammal species assessed, 49 species (23%) were listed as nationally threatened. These comprise nine (18%) Critically Endangered species, 26 (53%) Endangered species and 14 (29%) Vulnerable species. One species was considered regionally Extinct. A total of seven species (3%) were considered Near Threatened and 83 species (39%) were Data Deficient. Over sixty percent of Nepal’s ungulates are threatened and almost half of Nepal’s carnivores face extinction (45% threatened). Bats and small mammals are the least known groups with 60 species being Data Deficient. Habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation are the most significant threats. Other significant threats include illegal hunting, small and fragmented populations, reduction of prey base, human wildlife conflict and persecution, climate change, invasive species, disease and inadequate knowledge and research. Adequate measures to address these threats are described. It was also concluded that re-assessments of the status of certain mammal groups be carried out every five years and the setting up of a national online species database and mapping system would also greatly help in land-use planning and policies.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

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

Citations50
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Threatened TaxaSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207