MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907399367 · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2018.12.026

Is habitat fragmentation bad for biodiversity?

2018· article· en· W2907399367 on OpenAlexafffund
Lenore Fahrig, Víctor Arroyo‐Rodríguez, Joseph Bennett, Véronique Boucher‐Lalonde, Eliana Cazetta, David J. Currie, Felix Eigenbrod, Adam T. Ford, Susan Harrison, Jochen A.G. Jaeger, Nicola Koper, Amanda E. Martin, Jean‐Louis Martin, Jean Paul Metzger, Peter Morrison, Jonathan R. Rhodes, Denis A. Saunders, Daniel Simberloff, Adam C. Smith, Lutz Tischendorf, Mark Vellend, James I. Watling

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Conservation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaConcordia UniversityELUTIS Modelling and Consulting (Canada)University of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of OttawaUniversité de SherbrookeOkanagan University CollegeEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaCarleton University
FundersDirección General de Asuntos del Personal Académico, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de MéxicoConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCarleton UniversityCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsHabitat fragmentationFragmentation (computing)HabitatEcologyBiodiversityGeographySpecies richnessHabitat destructionExtinction debtForest fragmentationLandscape ecologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations587
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBiological ConservationSame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207