MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216452310 · doi:10.1111/cobi.13868

An introduction to decision science for conservation

2021· review· en· W3216452310 on OpenAlexaff
Victoria Hemming, Abbey E. Camaclang, Megan S. Adams, Mark A. Burgman, Katherine Carbeck, Josie Carwardine, Iadine Chadès, Lia Chalifour, Sarah J. Converse, Lindsay N. K. Davidson, Georgia E. Garrard, Riley J. R. Finn, Jesse R. Fleri, Jacqueline R. Huard, Helen J. Mayfield, Eve McDonald‐Madden, Ilona Naujokaitis‐Lewis, Hugh P. Possingham, Libby Rumpff, Michael C. Runge, Daniel Stewart, Vivitskaia Tulloch, Terry Walshe, Tara G. Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Biology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecision analysisDecision engineeringManagement scienceDecision support systemCLARITYEvidential reasoning approachComputer scienceBusiness decision mappingTerminologyR-CASTDecision theoryDecision treeData scienceKnowledge managementArtificial intelligenceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biodiversity conservation decisions are difficult, especially when they involve differing values, complex multidimensional objectives, scarce resources, urgency, and considerable uncertainty. Decision science embodies a theory about how to make difficult decisions and an extensive array of frameworks and tools that make that theory practical. We sought to improve conceptual clarity and practical application of decision science to help decision makers apply decision science to conservation problems. We addressed barriers to the uptake of decision science, including a lack of training and awareness of decision science; confusion over common terminology and which tools and frameworks to apply; and the mistaken impression that applying decision science must be time consuming, expensive, and complex. To aid in navigating the extensive and disparate decision science literature, we clarify meaning of common terms: decision science, decision theory, decision analysis, structured decision-making, and decision-support tools. Applying decision science does not have to be complex or time consuming; rather, it begins with knowing how to think through the components of a decision utilizing decision analysis (i.e., define the problem, elicit objectives, develop alternatives, estimate consequences, and perform trade-offs). This is best achieved by applying a rapid-prototyping approach. At each step, decision-support tools can provide additional insight and clarity, whereas decision-support frameworks (e.g., priority threat management and systematic conservation planning) can aid navigation of multiple steps of a decision analysis for particular contexts. We summarize key decision-support frameworks and tools and describe to which step of a decision analysis, and to which contexts, each is most useful to apply. Our introduction to decision science will aid in contextualizing current approaches and new developments, and help decision makers begin to apply decision science to conservation problems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.010
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0080.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.008

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 head0.104
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations184
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation BiologySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207