MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246974365 · doi:10.1111/csp2.22

Issue Information

2019· paratext· en· W4246974365 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew S. Kough, Carolyn A. Belak, Claire B. Paris, Agnessa Lundy, Heather Cronin, Gaya Gnanalingam, Sam Hagedorn, Rachel A. Skubel, Amanda C. Weiler, Alina Monroy-Gamboa, Duan Biggs

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Science and Practice · 2019
Typeparatext
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal case studies and regulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of California, DavisCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityU.S. Geological SurveyMonash UniversityDeakin UniversityNature ConservancyUniversità degli Studi di Napoli Federico IIImperial College LondonUniversity of OtagoMichigan State UniversityWildlife Conservation SocietyUniversity of ExeterWorld Wildlife Fund
KeywordsPolitical scienceBusinessComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cover description: The European Union (EU) bans the killing of strictly protected animals through the Habitats Directive. This law allows exceptions in special circumstances when doing so would not be detrimental to the conservation status of species' populations. Some decisions to kill animals have triggered litigation regarding how broadly the provision on exceptions can be interpreted. Epstein et al. review several contested aspects of the law to conclude that it would be very difficult for nations within the EU to sanction hunting of strictly protected animals because of the restrictive interpretations supported by prior decisions of the EU Court of Justice and other sources of law.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8700.740

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.344 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation Science and PracticeSame topicLegal case studies and regulationsFrench-language works237,207