MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W416831013 · doi:10.5751/es-04099-160214

In Pursuit of Knowledge: Addressing Barriers to Effective Conservation Evaluation

2011· article· en· W416831013 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Madeleine C. Bottrill, Marc Hockings, Hugh P. Possingham

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology and Society · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConservation scienceEnvironmental resource managementTraditional knowledgeEnvironmental planningPolitical scienceBusinessGeographyEcologyBiodiversityBiologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bottrill, M. C., M. Hockings, and H. P. Possingham. 2011. In pursuit of knowledge: addressing barriers to effective conservation evaluation. Ecology and Society 16(2): 14. https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-04099-160214

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)0.506
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.645
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.506
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.5060.645
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0170.054
Scholarly communication0.0410.050
Open science0.0110.040
Research integrity0.0220.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.006

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations72
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcology and SocietySame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207