MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3015920337 · doi:10.1111/conl.12712

Toward a climate‐informed North American protected areas network: Incorporating climate‐change refugia and corridors in conservation planning

2020· article· en· W3015920337 on OpenAlexaff
Diana Stralberg, Carlos Carroll, Scott E. Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Letters · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersWilburforce Foundation
KeywordsClimate changeBiomeGeographyBiodiversityEnvironmental resource managementBird conservationProtected areaEcologyEnvironmental scienceEcosystemHabitatBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Global and national commitments to slow biodiversity loss by expanding protected area networks also provide opportunities to evaluate conservation priorities in the face of climate change. Using recently developed indicators of climatic macrorefugia, environmental diversity, and corridors, we conducted a systematic, climate‐informed prioritization of conservation values across North America. We explicitly considered complementarity of multiple conservation objectives, capturing key niche‐based temperature and moisture thresholds for 324 tree species and 268 songbird species. Conservation rankings were influenced most strongly by climate corridors and species‐specific refugia layers. Although areas of high conservation value under climate change were partially aligned with existing protected areas, ∼80% of areas within the top quintile of biome‐level conservation values lack formal protection. Results from this study and application of our approach elsewhere can help improve the long‐term value of conservation investments at multiple spatial scales.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.056

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.187 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations125
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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