Measuring what matters in the Great Barrier Reef
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The natural environment plays an integral role in the culture of all people. Although the cultural services provided by ecosystems are often acknowledged, these abstract qualities are difficult to capture and are rarely incorporated into environmental strategic planning. We propose an approach for decision makers to weigh different cultural values across a range of stakeholder groups. We assessed the importance of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR) to the lifestyle, sense of place, pride, identity, and well‐being of 8300 people across multiple cultural groups, as well as each of these groups’ belief in the aesthetic, scientific, and biodiversity‐based value of the GBR. The surveyed population included indigenous and non‐indigenous local residents, Australians (non‐local), international and domestic tourists, tourism operators, and commercial fishers. We discuss how some groups grant similar levels of importance to some values and how other groups differ in their attachment to certain values. All of the groups possessed the selected cultural values to some extent, suggesting that these values matter, and could be leveraged to secure the future of iconic ecosystems such as the GBR.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".