The disproportionately high value of small patches for biodiversity conservation
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Small habitat patches have been historically neglected in conservation, primarily because extinction risk is higher in small patches. Nevertheless, sets of small patches usually harbor more species than one or a few larger patches of equal total area. Resolving this inconsistency is key to policy and practice in biodiversity conservation. Our analysis of 32 datasets (603 patches and 2290 taxa) provides two novel lines of evidence confirming that small patches have disproportionately high value for biodiversity. First, sets of small patches harbor more species than large patches even when considering only species of conservation concern. Second, sets of small patches harbor more species than large patches even when the small patches are very small compared to the large patches. Therefore, higher extinction risk in small than large patches does not decrease the cumulative value of small patches for biodiversity. We contend that acknowledging the conservation value of small patches, even very small patches, will be a necessary step for stemming biodiversity loss in the Anthropocene.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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