Crossing boundaries in conservation physiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecophysiology investigates the mechanisms underpinning the interactions between an organism and its environment (Block and Vannier, 1994). The audience of, and contributors to, ‘Conservation Physiology’ are well aware as to how intriguingly complex these interactions can be; yet, we tend to take this one step further. We do not aim just to understand these complexities in some abstract sense. We want our research to be ‘useful and relevant’ to society. A critical aspect of ecophysiology has always been that it can be researched in anthropogenic or managed environments (Feder and Block, 1991; Block and Vannier, 1994), and there is a long heritage that enmeshes physiological measurements with conservation interests (Wikelski and Cooke, 2006; Cooke et al., 2013). Indeed, it has been recognized for well over two decades that the full potential of conservation science depends on the integration of diverse expertise (Cooke et al., 2013), and between research and practice (Cooke and O’Connor, 2010). Yet is conservation physiology really a useful science, and have we truly begun to establish the levels of cross-disciplinary collaboration required to make it so? Furthermore, do these broad collaborations involving complex research themes fit within the practical urgency of a conservation crisis?
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".