Expert perspectives on global biodiversity loss and its drivers and impacts on people
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.817
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.994
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Despite substantial progress in understanding global biodiversity loss, major taxonomic and geographic knowledge gaps remain. Decision makers often rely on expert judgement to fill knowledge gaps, but are rarely able to engage with sufficiently large and diverse groups of specialists. To improve understanding of the perspectives of thousands of biodiversity experts worldwide, we conducted a survey and asked experts to focus on the taxa and freshwater, terrestrial, or marine ecosystem with which they are most familiar. We found several points of overwhelming consensus (for instance, multiple drivers of biodiversity loss interact synergistically) and important demographic and geographic differences in specialists’ perspectives and estimates. Experts from groups that are underrepresented in biodiversity science, including women and those from the Global South, recommended different priorities for conservation solutions, with less emphasis on acquiring new protected areas, and provided higher estimates of biodiversity loss and its impacts. This may in part be because they disproportionately study the most highly threatened taxa and habitats. Front Ecol Environ 2022;
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.
The record
- Venue
- Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment
- Topic
- Species Distribution and Climate Change
- Field
- Environmental Science
- Canadian institutions
- McGill UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
- Funders
- Centre for Ecology and HydrologyDepartment of Forestry and Natural Resources, Purdue UniversityU.S. Geological SurveyDeutsches Zentrum für integrative Biodiversitätsforschung Halle-Jena-LeipzigWestern Sydney UniversityUniversidad de ValparaísoUniversité de MontpellierJohns Hopkins UniversityUniversitetet i OsloUniversidad de Buenos AiresHelmholtz-Zentrum für UmweltforschungCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueMahasarakham UniversityUniversity of TokyoInyuvesi Yakwazulu-NataliAkademie Věd České RepublikyConsejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y TécnicasUniversidad Nacional de CórdobaUniversity of Colorado BoulderUniversity of MinnesotaUniversiteit UtrechtPeking UniversityUniversity of Massachusetts BostonGeorg-August-Universität GöttingenCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationLanzhou UniversityUniversity College LondonNational Science FoundationPurdue UniversityCollege of Engineering, Michigan State UniversityUniversität ZürichDepartment of Biology, University of New MexicoNorth Carolina State UniversitySmithsonian InstitutionArizona State UniversityKarl-Franzens-Universität GrazSmithsonian Environmental Research CenterDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftMcGill UniversitySight Research UKUniversidad de Santiago de ChileHawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney UniversityInternational Centre for Integrated Mountain DevelopmentColorado State UniversityUniversity of Cape TownUniversidad de Costa RicaMichigan State UniversityDirectorate for Biological SciencesImperial College LondonNatural Environment Research CouncilNature Conservancy
- Keywords
- BiodiversityThreatened speciesEnvironmental resource managementJudgementMeasurement of biodiversityGeographyHabitatHabitat destructionTaxonomic rankBiodiversity hotspotGlobal biodiversityEcosystem servicesEcosystemTaxonEnvironmental planningEcologyBiodiversity conservationBiologyPolitical scienceEnvironmental science
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes