MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210966229 · doi:10.3390/su14041979

A Review and Categorization of Artificial Intelligence-Based Opportunities in Wildlife, Ocean and Land Conservation

2022· review· en· W4210966229 on OpenAlexaff
Diane A. Isabelle, Mika Westerlund

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildlifeEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningSustainabilityEndangered speciesConservation psychologyWildlife conservationCategorizationBusinessPolitical scienceGeographyEcologyBiodiversityComputer scienceEconomicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scholarly literature on the links between Artificial Intelligence and the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals is burgeoning as climate change and the biotic crisis leading to mass extinction of species are raising concerns across the globe. With a focus on Sustainable Development Goals 14 (Life below Water) and 15 (Life on Land), this paper explores the opportunities of Artificial Intelligence applications in various domains of wildlife, ocean and land conservation. For this purpose, we develop a conceptual framework on the basis of a comprehensive review of the literature and examples of Artificial Intelligence-based approaches to protect endangered species, monitor and predict animal behavior patterns, and track illegal or unsustainable wildlife trade. Our findings provide scholars, governments, environmental organizations, and entrepreneurs with a much-needed taxonomy and real-life examples of Artificial Intelligence opportunities for tackling the grand challenge of rapidly decreasing biological diversity, which has severe implications for global food security, nature, and humanity.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0060.000

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 head0.124
GPT teacher head0.333
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations92
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicSpecies Distribution and Climate ChangeFrench-language works237,207