MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977795055 · doi:10.1111/gcb.14849

The human footprint represents observable human pressures: Reply to Kennedy et al.

2019· letter· en· W2977795055 on OpenAlexaffabout
Oscar Venter, Hugh P. Possingham, James Watson

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Change Biology · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicIndigenous Studies and Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFootprintObservableEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceGeographyPhysicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Human Modification map differs in important ways from the map of the human footprint, such as its mapping of widespread direct modification of much of the world's polar regions. An extensive validation reveals large inaccuracies in the Human Modification map, and that the human footprint tends to better represent actual observable human pressures on the ground. This article is a commentary on Kennedy et al., 25, 811-826; See also the Commentary on this article by Kennedy et al., 26, 333-336.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0090.021
Scholarly communication0.0080.021
Open science0.0070.006
Research integrity0.0530.119
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.005

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations12
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Change BiologySame topicIndigenous Studies and EcologyFrench-language works237,207