MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3072942160 · doi:10.5751/es-11802-250313

Assessing range-wide “contribution to recovery” by multiple local governments for a threatened species

2020· article· en· W3072942160 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Steven E. Greco

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Society · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThreatened speciesRange (aeronautics)Natural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsEcologyBiologyMaterials scienceHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To recover a threatened or endangered species, numerous local government jurisdictions are usually involved in habitat mitigation and conservation planning actions for evaluating impacts to habitat.In the USA local governments make official land use decisions.A social-ecological case study of multiple counties is presented tabulating the relative "contribution to recovery" by each county for giant garter snake (GGS; Thamnophis gigas), a federally and state-listed threatened California endemic watersnake species that is reliant on rice agriculture.The entire geographic range of the GGS is examined in relation to multiple county boundaries, recovery unit boundaries, federal habitat conservation plan (HCP) coverage, California natural community conservation plan (NCCP) coverage, and piecemeal mitigation (areas lacking formal conservation plans).Results indicate that of the 22 counties that cover the range of the GGS, nine counties have HCPs that cover the species in 38% of the range and of those nine HCPs six have NCCPs covering 14% of the range.Thus, more than half of the range (62%) mitigates for impacts to the GGS in a project-by-project (piecemeal) manner with no HCP, while 24% of the range has a population jeopardy standard covered by HCPs and 14% has a population recovery standard covered by NCCPs.However, four of the nine recovery units are substantially covered by HCP or NCCP conservation plans (~65-81%), while the remaining five units have far less coverage (~1-36%).Ninety-nine percent of all known GGS occurrences were found in Sutter, Sacramento, Yolo, Colusa, Butte, Merced, Glenn, San Joaquin, Fresno, Solano, and Kern counties (n = 85, 55, 51, 44, 36, 27, 17, 9, 9, 4, 4, respectively).These 11 counties will play an important role toward contributing to recovery of the GGS.In theory, the variation in different conservation standards over a species' range could have significant implications for its ultimate recovery potential.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and Society→Same topicWildlife Ecology and Conservation→French-language works237,207→