MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914852469 · doi:10.1111/conl.12634

Should potential for climate change refugia be mainstreamed into the criteria for describing EBSAs?

2019· article· en· W2914852469 on OpenAlexaff
David E. Johnson, Ellen Kenchington

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Letters · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsBedford Institute of OceanographyFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeRefugium (fishkeeping)Identification (biology)BiodiversityScope (computer science)Environmental resource managementEcologyConvention on Biological DiversityEnvironmental scienceGeographyComputer scienceBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The world's oceans are subject to the influence of climate change at all latitudes and depths. There is a growing body of literature on the responses of species to climate change, which has a strong deterministic component indicating that responses can be predicted. At the same time, advances in oceanographic data acquisition and modeling have facilitated the identification of potential climate change refugia. The Convention on Biological Diversity's “Voluntary Specific Workplan on Biodiversity in Cold‐Water Areas within the Jurisdictional Scope of the Convention” explicitly calls for the identification and protection of refugia in cold‐water areas. We propose adding “Climate Change Refugium” as an integral consideration for identification of Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas (EBSAs). We provide a description of this as a potential eighth criterion. We then briefly discuss the pros and cons of introducing this eighth criterion, or an alternative strategy to develop guidelines that explicitly link refugia to the rationale of existing EBSA criteria, in the hope that this opinion piece will launch further discussion on this notion.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.611
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0050.000

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations22
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation LettersSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207