Reversing extinction trends: new uses of (old) herbarium specimens to accelerate conservation action on threatened species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although often not collected specifically for the purposes of conservation, herbarium specimens offer sufficient information to reconstruct parameters that are needed to designate a species as 'at-risk' of extinction. While such designations should prompt quick and efficient legal action towards species recovery, such action often lags far behind and is mired in bureaucratic procedure. The increase in online digitization of natural history collections has now led to a surge in the number new studies on the uses of machine learning. These repositories of species occurrences are now equipped with advances that allow for the identification of rare species. The increase in attention devoted to estimating the scope and severity of the threats that lead to the decline of such species will increase our ability to mitigate these threats and reverse the declines, overcoming a current barrier to the recovery of many threatened plant species. Thus far, collected specimens have been used to fill gaps in systematics, range extent, and past genetic diversity. We find that they also offer material with which it is possible to foster species recovery, ecosystem restoration, and de-extinction, and these elements should be used in conjunction with machine learning and citizen science initiatives to mobilize as large a force as possible to counter current extinction trends.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".