Zoo animals as “proxy species” for threatened sister taxa: Defining a novel form of species surrogacy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The vast number of species threatened with extinction, coupled with the limited resources to support them, results in the need to prioritize species for conservation action. Similarly, zoo collection managers must prioritize species for inclusion at their institutions, which are also limited by space and resources. While conservation status is one factor considered by zoos, weight is also given to qualitative features and practical considerations when evaluating the fit of different species. Resultantly, the species prioritized by zoos have limited overlap with those prioritized for conservation. Several recent studies have highlighted that the majority of species maintained in zoos are ranked globally as least concern. Given the centrality of conservation to the modern mission of zoos, there is value in identifying clear connections between non-threatened species in zoos and the roles they can play in conservation. Surrogate species approaches have been used in many instances to facilitate indirect conservation, and several distinctive types of surrogacy have been formally described. The aim of this study is to define a novel form of species surrogacy (i.e., "proxy species") that draws utility from non-threatened species maintained in zoos. A proxy species is here defined as a non-threatened species managed ex situ that can be used as a flagship for a related threatened species that is morphologically similar but not otherwise represented in zoos. The benefits of this approach and opportunities for its application are here reviewed. This concept will provide opportunities to enhance the value of pre-existing zoo collections, and ultimately, support conservation objectives.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it