MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994673543 · doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108368

Indirect effects of habitat loss via habitat fragmentation: A cross-taxa analysis of forest-dependent species

2019· article· en· W2994673543 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiological Conservation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFig Tree FoundationUniversidade Estadual de Santa CruzMarshall-Smith Syndroom Research FoundationFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de GoiásConseil Français de l'ÉnergieFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas GeraisFundação Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de JaneiroFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado da BahiaPennsylvania Department of AgricultureConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCenter for Stroke Research BerlinDermatology FoundationFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloSight Research UKBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungNatural Environment Research CouncilNational Instruments CorporationCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorAmerican College of DentistsAssociation of American RailroadsEuropean Commission
KeywordsSpecies richnessHabitatEcologyHabitat fragmentationFragmentation (computing)Habitat destructionBiodiversityExtinction debtGeographyTaxonBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.237 · 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