MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Achieving mangrove conservation and sustainable use in Mexico through community-based Management Units for Wildlife Conservation within and beyond Protected Areas

2018· preprint· en· W2797762280 on OpenAlexaff
Paola Fajardo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMangroveLivelihoodEcosystem servicesEnvironmental resource managementBusinessSustainable managementContext (archaeology)BiodiversityProtected areaWildlifeEnvironmental planningGeographyAgroforestrySustainabilityEcosystemEnvironmental scienceEcologyAgriculture

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mangroves are valuable socio-ecological ecosystems that provide vital goods and services to millions of people, including wood, a renewable natural capital, which is the primary source of energy and construction material for several coastal communities in developing countries. Unfortunately, mangrove loss and degradation occur at alarming rates. Regardless of the protection and close monitoring of mangrove ecosystems in Mexico during the last two decades, mangrove degradation and the loss of biodiversity is still ongoing. In some regions, unregulated and unsustainable mangrove wood harvesting are important causes of degradation. In this context, community-based mangrove forestry through Management Units for Wildlife Conservation could be a cost-effective alternative scheme to manage and conserve mangrove forests, their ecosystem services and biological diversity within and beyond protected areas while providing sustainable local livelihoods and helping reduce illegal logging. The objective of the Management Units is to promote alternative means of production with the rational and planned use of renewable resources based on Management Plans. If implemented with a multidisciplinary perspective that incorporates scientific assessments this conservation strategy may contribute to achieving national and international environmental and biodiversity agreements providing multiple social, ecological and economic benefits from local to global 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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCoastal wetland ecosystem dynamicsFrench-language works237,207