JARA: ‘Just Another Red-List Assessment’
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Identifying species at risk of extinction is necessary to prioritise conservation efforts. The International Union for Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species is the global standard for quantifying extinction risk, with many species categorised according to population reduction thresholds. We introduce the Bayesian state-space framework ‘JARA’ (Just Another Red-List Assessment). Designed as decision-support tool, JARA allows both process error and uncertainty to be incorporated into IUCN Red List assessments under criterion A. JARA is implemented via an R package that is designed to be easy to use, rapid and widely applicable, so conservation practitioners can apply it to their own count or relative abundance data. JARA outputs display easy to interpret graphics of the posterior probability of the population trend against the corresponding IUCN Red List categories, as well as additional graphics to describe the timeseries and model diagnostics. We illustrate JARA using three real-world examples: (1) relative abundance indices for two elasmobranchs, Yellowspotted Skate Leucoraja wallacei and Whitespot Smoothhound Mustelus palumbes ; (2) a comparison of standardized abundance indices for Atlantic Blue Marlin Makaira nigricans and (3) absolute abundance data for Cape Gannets Morus capensis . Finally, using a simulation experiment, we demonstrate how JARA provides greater accuracy than two approaches commonly used to assigning a Red List Status under criterion A. Tools like JARA can help further standardise Red List evaluations, increasing objectivity and lowering the risk of misclassification, with substantial benefits for global conservation efforts.
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 | 0.017 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.068 | 0.019 |
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".