MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3134060691 · doi:10.1098/rsbl.2021.0007

Dark extinction: the problem of unknown historical extinctions

2021· article· en· W3134060691 on OpenAlexafffund
Mannfred M. A. Boehm, Quentin Cronk

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology Letters · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWildlife Ecology and Conservation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsExtinction (optical mineralogy)BiologyPeriod (music)Taxonomic rankBiodiversityEcologyExtinction eventEcosystemHabitatGlobal biodiversityTaxonPaleontologyPopulationDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extinction of species before they are discovered and named (dark extinction, DE) is widely inferred as a significant part of species loss in the 'pre-taxonomic' period (approx. 1500-1800 CE) and, to some extent, in the 'taxonomic period' (approx. 1800-present) as well. The discovery of oceanic islands and other pristine habitats by European navigators and the consequent introduction of destructive mammals, such as rats and goats, started a process of anthropogenic extinction. Much ecosystem change happened before systematic scientific recording, so has led to DE. Statistical methods are available to robustly estimate DE in the 'taxonomic period'. For the 'pre-taxonomic period', simple extrapolation can be used. The application of these techniques to world birds, for example, suggests that approximately 56 DEs occurred in the 'taxonomic period' (1800-present) and approximately 180 in the 'pre-taxonomic period' (1500-1800). Targeting collection activities in extinction hotspots, to make sure organisms are represented in collections before their extinction, is one way of reducing the number of extinct species without a physical record (providing that collection efforts do not themselves contribute to species extinction).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.410
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.195 · 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.

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

Citations71
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology LettersSame topicWildlife Ecology and ConservationFrench-language works237,207