MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Incorporating Biological Traits into Conservation Strategies

2020· review· en· W3082966902 on OpenAlexafffund
Marta Miatta, Amanda E. Bates, Paul V. R. Snelgrove

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Marine Science · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitut Nordique De Recherche En Environnement Et En Santé Au TravailCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBiologyEnvironmental resource managementEcologyNatural resource economicsEnvironmental scienceEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Implementation of marine conservation strategies, such as increasing the numbers, extent, and effectiveness of protected areas (PAs), can help achieve conservation and restoration of ocean health and associated goods and services. Despite increasing recognition of the importance of including aspects of ecological functioning in PA design, the physical characteristics of habitats and simple measures of species diversity inform most PA designations. Marine and terrestrial ecologists have recently been using biological traits to assess community dynamics, functioning, and vulnerability to anthropogenic impacts. Here, we explore potential trait-based marine applications to advance PA design. We recommend strategies to integrate biological traits into ( a) conservation objectives (e.g., by assessing and predicting impacts and vulnerability), ( b) PA spatial planning (e.g., mapping ecosystem functions and functional diversity hot spots), and ( c) time series monitoring protocols (e.g., using functional traits to detect recoveries). We conclude by emphasizing the need for pragmatic tools to improve the efficacy of spatial planning and monitoring efforts.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.281 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations72
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Marine ScienceSame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207