MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281477985 · doi:10.1111/csp2.12724

Reducing uncertainty in climate change responses of inland fishes: A decision‐path approach

2022· article· en· W4281477985 on OpenAlexaff
Abigail J. Lynch, Bonnie J. E. Myers, Jesse P. Wong, Cindy Chu, Ralph W. Tingley, Jeffrey A. Falke, Thomas J. Kwak, Craig P. Paukert, Trevor J. Krabbenhoft

Bibliographic record

VenueConservation Science and Practice · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeAdaptation (eye)Environmental resource managementAdaptive managementHabitatSuiteComputer scienceDecision support systemEcologyGeographyEnvironmental scienceBiologyData mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Climate change will continue to be an important consideration for conservation practitioners. However, uncertainty in identifying appropriate management strategies, particularly for understudied species and regions, constrains the implementation of science‐based solutions and adaptation strategies. Here, we share a decision‐path approach to reduce uncertainty in climate change responses of inland fishes to inform conservation and adaptation planning. With the Fish and Climate Change database (FiCli), a comprehensive, online, public database of peer‐reviewed literature on documented and projected climate impacts to inland fishes, users can identify relevant studies and associated management recommendations via geographic regions, response types (i.e., fish assemblage dynamics, demographic, distributional, evolutionary, phenological), fish taxa, and traits (e.g., thermal guilds, feeding type, parental care, habitat type) and use a suite of summary tools to make more informed decisions. For both data‐rich and data‐poor scenarios, we demonstrate that this approach can reduce uncertainty in understanding climate change responses. Using thermal sensitivity as an example, we also establish the utility of FiCli database to address other user‐defined, management‐relevant questions via supplementary analyses. This decision‐path approach can be applied to rapid assessments, management decisions, and policy development and may serve as a model for other conservation decision‐making processes.

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)0.046
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.088
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0460.088
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueConservation Science and PracticeSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207