The Use of Remote Sensing to Enhance Biodiversity Monitoring and Detection: A Critical Challenge for the Twenty-First Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Improved detection and monitoring of biodiversity is critical at a time when the Earth’s biodiversity loss due to human activities is accelerating at an unprecedented rate. We face the largest loss of biodiversity in human history, a loss which has been called the “sixth mass extinction” (Leakey 1996; Kolbert 2014), given that its magnitude is in proportion to past extinction episodes in Earth history detectable from the fossil record. International efforts to conserve biodiversity (United Nations 2011) and to develop an assessment process to document changes in the status and trends of biodiversity globally through the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (Díaz et al. 2015) have raised awareness about the critical need for continuous monitoring of biodiversity at multiple spatial scales across the globe. Biodiversity itself—the variation in life found among ecosystems and organisms at any level of biological organization—cannot practically be observed everywhere. However, if habitats, functional traits, trait diversity, and the spatial turnover of plant functions can be remotely sensed, the potential exists to globally inventory the diversity of habitats and traits associated with terrestrial biodiversity. To face this challenge, there have been recent calls for a global biodiversity monitoring system (Jetz et al. 2016; Proença et al. 2017; The National Academy of Sciences 2017). A central theme of this volume is that remote sensing (RS) will play a key role in such a system.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".