MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291287497 · doi:10.1080/08941920.2022.2092668

Exploring Conservation Actor Networks in Trinidad And Tobago

2022· article· en· W4291287497 on OpenAlexaff
Kimberly Wishart Chu Foon, H. Carolyn Peach Brown, Jeremy Pittman

Bibliographic record

VenueSociety & Natural Resources · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCentralitySocial network analysisCohesion (chemistry)Context (archaeology)Structural holesNetwork analysisBusinessEnvironmental resource managementNature ConservationPublic relationsPolitical scienceKnowledge managementGeographySociologyEcologyComputer scienceSocial capitalSocial scienceEconomicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Networks play an important role in conservation by facilitating and strengthening collaboration among conservation organizations. This study explores the structural characteristics of networks that could promote or inhibit conservation in Trinidad and Tobago. To achieve this, a questionnaire was sent out to all identifiable conservation actors on the island. Social network analysis software was used to analyze the data and generate network measures and maps. Results show that there are 69 conservation organizations on the island and NGOs play an important role. The overall network density and centralization are low while network cohesion across most categories of actor subgroups was positive. Ego network measures on centrality and brokerage were used to provide recommendations that could help to strengthen collaboration between organizations. As the first study of its kind using network analysis applied to conservation in this geographical context, it can help to inform future conservation research and initiatives.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.165 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociety & Natural ResourcesSame topicConservation, Biodiversity, and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207