Guiding the prioritization of the most endangered and evolutionary distinct birds for new zoo conservation programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Zoos have played a pivotal role in the successful reinforcement and reintroduction of species threatened with extinction, but prioritization is required in the face of increasing need and limited capacity. One means of prioritizing between species of equal threat status when establishing new breeding programs is the consideration of evolutionary distinctness (ED). More distinct species have fewer close relatives such that their extinction would result in a greater overall loss to the Tree of Life. Considering global ex situ holdings of birds (a group with a complete and well-detailed evolutionary tree), we investigate the representation of at-risk and highly evolutionarily distinct species in global zoo holdings. We identified a total of 2,236 bird species indicated by the Zoological Information Management System as being held in zoological institutions worldwide. As previously reported, imperiled species (defined as those possessing endangered or critically endangered threat status) in this database are less likely to be held in zoos than non-imperiled species. However, we find that species possessing ED scores within the top 10% of all bird species are more likely to be held in zoos than other species, possibly because they possess unique characteristics that have historically made them popular exhibits. To assist with the selection of high priority ED species for future zoo conservation programs, we provide a list of imperiled species currently not held in zoos, ranked by ED. This list highlights species representing particular priorities for ex situ conservation planners, and represents a practical tool for improving the conservation value of zoological collections.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".