MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3176512047 · doi:10.3389/frym.2021.576035

Flagship Species: Do They Help or Hurt Conservation?

2021· article· en· W3176512047 on OpenAlex
Emily Moynes, Vishnu Prithiv Bhathe, Christina Brennan, Stephanie Ellis, Joseph Bennett, Sean J. Landsman

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers for Young Minds · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAnimal and Plant Science Education
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreaturesNothingExtinction (optical mineralogy)HappeningEnvironmental ethicsHabitatGeographyNeed to knowEcologyHistoryEthnologyBiologyComputer securityNatural (archaeology)ArchaeologyComputer sciencePerformance art

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many of the plants and animals we love, and even more we do not know about, are in serious danger. Species extinctions are occurring at alarming rates. But how do we prevent extinction from happening? One strategy is to first make people aware of what is going on. If people know which plants and animals are in danger, they will be more likely to support measures that protect those species. We can do this by drawing attention to problems facing species that people are familiar with, like African lions, Siberian tigers, and humpback whales. Sadly, this strategy ignores many weird and wonderful creatures most people may know nothing about! More importantly, it prevents us from protecting other important species and the environments in which they live. It is time to re-think our approach so that we can protect as many species and habitats as possible!

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.285
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.259 · 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