MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3121519339 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-129206/v1

Monitoring Extinction Risk and Threats of the World’s Fishes based on the Sampled Red List Index

2020· preprint· en· W3121519339 on OpenAlexaff
Rafael Miranda, Imanol Miqueleiz, William Darwall, Catherine Sayer, Nicholas K. Dulvy, Kent E. Carpenter, Beth Polidoro, Nadia I. Richman, Caroline M. Pollock, Craig Hilton‐Taylor, Robin Freeman, Ben Collen, Monika Böhm

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersFundación Caja NavarraUniversidad de NavarraEsmée Fairbairn FoundationRufford Foundation
KeywordsBiodiversityThreatened speciesIUCN Red ListGeographyFisheryConservation statusExtinction (optical mineralogy)Marine ecosystemFreshwater fishMarine speciesRepresentativeness heuristicGlobal biodiversityEnvironmental scienceEcologyEcosystemBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>StatisticsHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Global biodiversity targets require us to identify species at risk of extinction and quantify status and trends of biodiversity. The Red List Index (RLI) tracks trends in the conservation status of entire species groups over time by monitoring changes in categories assigned to species. Here, we calculate this index for the world’s fishes in 2010, using a sampled approach to the RLI based on a randomly selected sample of 1,500 species, and also present RLI splits for freshwater and marine systems separately. We further compare specific traits of a worldwide fish list to our sample to assess its representativeness. Overall, 15.1% of species in the sample were estimated to be threatened with extinction, resulting in an sampled RLI of 0.914 for all species, 0.972 in marine and 0.860 in freshwater ecosystems. Our sample showed fishing as the principal threat for marine species, and pollution by agricultural and foresty effluents for freshwater fishes. The sampled list provides a robust representation for tracking trends in the conservation status of the world’s fishes, including disaggregated sampled indices for marine and freshwater fish. Reassessment and backcasting of this index is urgent to check the achievement of the commitments proposed in global biodiversity targets.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207