Regional scientific research benefits threatened-species conservation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although conventional wisdom considers knowledge of threatened species’ ecology and status essential for conservation, few studies demonstrate this in a quantitative way across many species and within the same political entity. Here, we evaluated the impacts of scientific research against conservation interventions (including funding) and species-level correlates, accounting for phylogenetic relatedness, on the conservation of 162 threatened mammal species in China. We did so at three levels: global (all scientific papers published on the species), regional (a subset of the global papers that included at least one author from a local organization) and regional conservation-related (a subset of the regional papers that focused only on ecology and conservation). In addition to protected-area coverage and certain biological traits, regional conservation-related research emerged as an important predictor of species recovery. The same was not the case for global research. We should particularly encourage future regional research effort that has direct relevance to specific conservation issues.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
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 it