MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922911147 · doi:10.1111/csp2.21

Climate policy action needed to reduce vulnerability of conservation‐reliant grassland birds in North America

2019· article· en· W2922911147 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chad B. Wilsey, Lotem Taylor, Brooke L. Bateman, Caitlin M. Jensen, Nicole L. Michel, Arvind O. Panjabi, Gary Langham

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Science and Practice · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Resources Conservation ServiceCommission for Environmental CooperationJohn D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
KeywordsGrasslandClimate changeVulnerability (computing)GeographyPopulationRange (aeronautics)EcologyAgroforestryEnvironmental scienceBiologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grassland birds have suffered dramatic population declines and are under threat of further grassland conversion. Simultaneously, grassland regions are projected to have high rates of future climate change. We assessed the vulnerability of grassland birds in North America under scenarios of global climate change reflecting the objectives of the Paris Agreement. The assessment incorporated model‐based projections of range losses and gains as well as trait‐based information on adaptive capacity. Nearly half (42%) of grassland birds were highly vulnerable during the breeding season under a 3.0°C increase in global mean temperature scenario representing current commitments under the Paris Accord. This proportion declined to 13% with a 2.0°C increase and to 8% with a 1.5°C increase over preindustrial global mean temperature. Regardless of scenario, more than 70% of grassland birds had some vulnerability to climate change. Policy actions beyond the present‐day national commitments under the Paris Accord are needed to reduce vulnerability of grassland birds in a changing climate.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Citations45
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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